Over 90,000 killed in Syrian crisis - UN

[NeverSure]

A very interesting interview on Al Jazeera, late last night. They were speaking with Syrian analyst from UK.(sorry do not recall the name, but fluent English, not even an accent)

Anyhow, he appeared to be very pro government and made some rather interesting points

1. If it was Assad regime, they would have used Scud missiles, not something small which so happens to be in the hands of rebels

2. If it was Assad regime, why would they bomb only certain area's not wider areas

3. If it was Assad regime, why would he kill his own soldiers

Another interesting point he made, is that The West has long decided to go into Syria to remove any and all chemical and other weapons in fear that it could fall into the wrong hands. So according to him, it is not really relevant who used it, the Western powers will go in either way.

Personally, i do not know who used it as both sides have enough evidence to point at each other, however the grave danger i see is, if West does go in to support the rebels, they would be giving hand to Al Quada and other jihadist groups and who is to say, once Assad is out, the new power struggle will not break out between the said groups

IF West does not go in, the murder continues, so there is no win win situation and no light at the end of the tunnel

It has long been believed by some, and I'm not saying I believe it or asking you to believe it, that the WMD's that Saddam was reported to have were moved into Syria. Those WMD's were for chemical warfare and it is known that Saddam gassed a whole bunch of his own people. Some believe that moving them into Syria caused them to not be found after the invasion of Iraq.

Now it is believed by many that Syria has such weapons regardless of where they got them. The reason the US and others want to go after Syria "could" have as much to do with cleaning out those weapons as stopping their use in Syria.

Israel has bombed sites in Syria believed to contain such weapons.

Another thought. Is it possible that the 1st world countries want to send a message to Russia and the rest of the world that backing such a regime as Assad is bad for business? I can tell you that neither Israel nor the NATO countries are at all afraid of Russia short of using nukes. Russia simply hasn't invested in its military and it sucks. What Russia might do here isn't even a consideration.

IMHO if going after the chemical warfare weapons is the real reason here then I wish them luck. If it's an attempt to take out Assad with the idea it will bring peace, then it seems foolhardy.

$.02

[Exsexyman]

Foolhardy is the word. Notice how silly little William Hague is jumping up and down, straight away shouting that there is no doubt that the Assad regime is responsible for the attack, doing his masters calling! Despite there being no evidence as to who was responsible. The man is a joke, and is held in contempt in the UK. When the Assad Government are winning, repelling the Western backed AL Qaeda Islamist terrorists who are trying to take over the country, on the day that the UN send in inspectors why on earth would he unleash chemical weapons? It is laughable, he may be a nasty piece of work but he is not a fool. This would be totally self defeating. The so called 'rebels', (read western backed and armed Al Qaeda terrorists), are getting desperate,as are their sponsors. This is not going according to plan. This should all have been over very quickly, (like Libya, Look how well that turned out, Libya now is in a state of anarchy with Islamic terrorists running amok, turning a once stable and prosperous country into a basket case, thanks to NATO). Well done!

What is known in Syria is that back in May, the UN's Carla Del Ponte who was investigating human rights abuses in Syria found that there was evidence that the Western backed 'Rebels' had used chemical weapons in Homs. Also Western backed 'Rebels' were arrested in Turkey with chemicals, and under interrogation confessed that they were for making chemical weapon bombs. Despite President Obama's decree that this would be crossing a 'red line', nothing was done. Inconvenient i guess, ( By the way, i wonder where the materials and the chemicals came from!) Answers on a postcard!

The conflict in Syria had been expected to be over and done with very quickly,( Like Libya), and then the US, (After a decent interval), could then move on to Iran, which is the next on the list.

Four star general Wesley Clark tells it like it is. Time to wake up to what is going on.

[Credo]

Everyone needs to remember that Assad may not be fully in control of the military.

[Ulysses G.]

Four star general Wesley Clark tells it like it is.

When quoting this "general" everyone should remember that he almost started World War 3 and that he was fired ("early retirement") for it. The General who canned him, called him a "Nut". The conspiracy theory crowd love quoting this guy, because he is one of them.

[geriatrickid]

the reality is that just as many Syrians support his regime as oppose it.

And where did you unearth that gem?

Sad, but true. We are fed a constant diet of "popular" uprising, but the reality is that the Assad regime could not continue if it did not have some popular support.

I suggest you are making the same mistake that was made in Iraq, It was assumed that once the sadistic tyrant Hussein was gone, everyone would get on board the peace train to prosperity. Unfortunately, in Iraq, just as is the case in Syria, many millions of people derive their wealth, status and position from the Assad regime.

No argument from me that the bloodshed in Syria is awful. However, if some countries are distressed, talk to Syria's backer, Russia. The arab world hasn't said anything public about the Russian support. One would think that the great bastions of liberty and freedom Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela would have spoken up. Countries and people quick to crap all over the USA and UK, haven't said boo. And yes, I'm pointing the finger at Brazil, Ireland, Spain, Sweden, Norway etc.

Erdogan and Turkey instead of circulating anti Israel lies, that Israel was responsible for the Egypt coup, should instead and focus on Syria, the country with which it once was loosely allied in Erdogan's quest to rebuild Turkish power. Erdogan gambled on Syria and he lost.

[geriatrickid]

Everyone needs to remember that Assad may not be fully in control of the military.

good point.

I still have a problem seeing Assad as the author of such cruelty.

The man lived in the west, was a trained eye surgeon and never craved political power. He was brought back by his father's political cronies.

[Scott]

A racist remark has been removed.

[simple1]

Everyone needs to remember that Assad may not be fully in control of the military.

good point.

I still have a problem seeing Assad as the author of such cruelty. The man lived in the west, was a trained eye surgeon and never craved political power. He was brought back by his father's political cronies.

Under Assad's rule Syria had been torturing children & systematic torture of others, he would have the power to order stopping such practices. It was him who ordered the violent suppression of the Arab Spring demonstrators in 2011 that has lead to the curent situation. His father was equally cruel and repressive, so he had plenty of time to learn of what to do & what not to do. So tell me why you conclude Assad does not have executive ownership of systematic cruelty and violent oppression.

It would be interesting to know what he & his British born wife discuss, rather than her posing for propoganda photo opportunities in support of her husband.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2381475/Syrian-leader-Assad-posts-cheery-Instagram-pictures-wife-smiling-children.html

[Publicus]

Four star general Wesley Clark tells it like it is.

When quoting this "general" everyone should remember that he almost started World War 3 and that he was fired ("early retirement") for it. The General who canned him, called him a "Nut". The conspiracy theory crowd love quoting this guy, because he is one of them.

I wouldn't call Gen Wesley Clark a nut, or a conspiracy guy. He's saying what he knows about Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rumsfeld and the whole of the neocon gang.

Also, it would be a stupendous feat to connect Bush and his neocons to Obama and his foreign policy and military people, as a previous poster seems to be attempting to do.

Prez Obama has been a prudent commander in chief so I trust his judgement in respect to engaging U.S. armed forces in new conflicts. It does appear that Obama has come to the inexorable conclusion that he has to take some sort of military action in Syria. It looks very much like any military actions Prez Obama may take would be restricted to limited and targeted sea and air operations.

Gen Colin Powell yesterday said the U.S. should do nothing about Syria, so I know that option is the wrong one. I recall it was SecState Colin Powell who led Bush's invasion of Iraq by presenting the UN with false claims of WMD in Iraq. I don't believe anything Powell says.

[simple1]

Good news....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23833912#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

Now let's hope the rebels promise safe conduct as well and we get a chance for the UN to show some leadership.

Interesting as the latest new reports say that Syria had refused permission for UN inspectors to visit the site of the latest gas atack, only sites of alleged previous gas attacks. Also reports that the Syrian army has been heavily shelling the area of the gas attack in order to disrupt future efforts to ascertain what actually happened. - any updates?

[Credo]

I don't care too much about who says what. It is the truth and the best strategy that we should be looking for and that will come from a broad consensus, not from a political position.

[midas]

Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E20130825?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637

[NeverSure]

Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E20130825?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637

Not surprising. My unscientific knowledge of the opinions of friends and neighbors is that we are burned out on these wars. There's never a good ending because both sides are bad, and whoever we back turns out to be as bad or worse. In the meantime we spend thousands of precious US lives and untold amounts of money, and for what?

Even though Libya was smarter and quicker in the sense that the allied forces didn't try to defeat them on the ground, still, what is the outcome?

(Yes, I know there were some boots on the ground but it was primarily done from the air, and quickly.)

[midas]

Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E20130825?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637

Not surprising. My unscientific knowledge of the opinions of friends and neighbors is that we are burned out on these wars. There's never a good ending because both sides are bad, and whoever we back turns out to be as bad or worse. In the meantime we spend thousands of precious US lives and untold amounts of money, and for what?

Even though Libya was smarter and quicker in the sense that the allied forces didn't try to defeat them on the ground, still, what is the outcome?

(Yes, I know there were some boots on the ground but it was primarily done from the air, and quickly.)

And shouldn't this in itself be enough reason to hold back? But if the West does go ahead once again i will bet any money you like will find the results will reflect incorrect assumptions and poor understanding of cultural differences. It doesn't take much research to realise the Iranians (who have pledged their support for Syria)aren't the least bit scared of dying in a war and on the contrary they almost expect it as the next phase of their history. (i.e. arrival of 12th Imam ) .

[simple1]

Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E20130825?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637

Not surprising. My unscientific knowledge of the opinions of friends and neighbors is that we are burned out on these wars. There's never a good ending because both sides are bad, and whoever we back turns out to be as bad or worse. In the meantime we spend thousands of precious US lives and untold amounts of money, and for what?

Even though Libya was smarter and quicker in the sense that the allied forces didn't try to defeat them on the ground, still, what is the outcome?

(Yes, I know there were some boots on the ground but it was primarily done from the air, and quickly.)

And shouldn't this in itself be enough reason to hold back? But if the West does go ahead once again i will bet any money you like will find the results will reflect incorrect assumptions and poor understanding of cultural differences. It doesn't take much research to realise the Iranians (who have pledged their support for Syria)aren't the least bit scared of dying in a war and on the contrary they almost expect it as the next phase of their history. (i.e. arrival of 12th Imam ) .

The ayatollahs have a blood soaked history of torture and mass murder of opponents seeking a more liberal regime. As usual it would be the civilians and brain washed recruits who would die en masse in a possible future war with Iran.

[lemoncake]

Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E20130825?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637

Not surprising. My unscientific knowledge of the opinions of friends and neighbors is that we are burned out on these wars. There's never a good ending because both sides are bad, and whoever we back turns out to be as bad or worse. In the meantime we spend thousands of precious US lives and untold amounts of money, and for what?

Even though Libya was smarter and quicker in the sense that the allied forces didn't try to defeat them on the ground, still, what is the outcome?

(Yes, I know there were some boots on the ground but it was primarily done from the air, and quickly.)

And shouldn't this in itself be enough reason to hold back? But if the West does go ahead once again i will bet any money you like will find the results will reflect incorrect assumptions and poor understanding of cultural differences. It doesn't take much research to realise the Iranians (who have pledged their support for Syria)aren't the least bit scared of dying in a war and on the contrary they almost expect it as the next phase of their history. (i.e. arrival of 12th Imam ) .

Is that why Iranians do NOTHING but talk? because they are not scared of dying

[NeverSure]

Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E20130825?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637

Not surprising. My unscientific knowledge of the opinions of friends and neighbors is that we are burned out on these wars. There's never a good ending because both sides are bad, and whoever we back turns out to be as bad or worse. In the meantime we spend thousands of precious US lives and untold amounts of money, and for what?

Even though Libya was smarter and quicker in the sense that the allied forces didn't try to defeat them on the ground, still, what is the outcome?

(Yes, I know there were some boots on the ground but it was primarily done from the air, and quickly.)

And shouldn't this in itself be enough reason to hold back? But if the West does go ahead once again i will bet any money you like will find the results will reflect incorrect assumptions and poor understanding of cultural differences. It doesn't take much research to realise the Iranians (who have pledged their support for Syria)aren't the least bit scared of dying in a war and on the contrary they almost expect it as the next phase of their history. (i.e. arrival of 12th Imam ) .

I agree with the first half of what you wrote, but I don't agree about the general population. The Iranian people (Persians) are nominal Shia Muslims, as interested in becoming like the West as they are supporting their Muslim leaders. It is the leadership that is radical. I don't believe any assertion that the average Persian wouldn't mind dying in a war.

The Persian people don't like their government but when they protest they are shot in the streets.

However the leaders hold the power and are bad dudes. But they are toothless tigers unless they get nukes. Yes they are bad about supplying arms to other Muslim countries, but they are Russian arms, meaning antiques. There's not one dimn thing that Iran could do right now if the Western allies attack Assad.

In fact, Iran might just give the allies the excuse they've been waiting for... ??

[midas]

Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E20130825?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637

Not surprising. My unscientific knowledge of the opinions of friends and neighbors is that we are burned out on these wars. There's never a good ending because both sides are bad, and whoever we back turns out to be as bad or worse. In the meantime we spend thousands of precious US lives and untold amounts of money, and for what?

Even though Libya was smarter and quicker in the sense that the allied forces didn't try to defeat them on the ground, still, what is the outcome?

(Yes, I know there were some boots on the ground but it was primarily done from the air, and quickly.)

And shouldn't this in itself be enough reason to hold back? But if the West does go ahead once again i will bet any money you like will find the results will reflect incorrect assumptions and poor understanding of cultural differences. It doesn't take much research to realise the Iranians (who have pledged their support for Syria)aren't the least bit scared of dying in a war and on the contrary they almost expect it as the next phase of their history. (i.e. arrival of 12th Imam ) .

I agree with the first half of what you wrote, but I don't agree about the general population. The Iranian people (Persians) are nominal Shia Muslims, as interested in becoming like the West as they are supporting their Muslim leaders. It is the leadership that is radical. I don't believe any assertion that the average Persian wouldn't mind dying in a war.

The Persian people don't like their government but when they protest they are shot in the streets.

However the leaders hold the power and are bad dudes. But they are toothless tigers unless they get nukes. Yes they are bad about supplying arms to other Muslim countries, but they are Russian arms, meaning antiques. There's not one dimn thing that Iran could do right now if the Western allies attack Assad.

In fact, Iran might just give the allies the excuse they've been waiting for... ??

So you agree that first and foremost it is the will of “ We the People “ that should ultimately decide?

Iran is only one unknown element. Do you believe it is wise for the West (given the economic fragility of the world right now) to start a war that would also involve Russia and possibly China? And before you even say anything like “ China won't become involved “, how does anyone possibly know that? And is it worth taking that gamble?

[simple1]

Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E20130825?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637

Not surprising. My unscientific knowledge of the opinions of friends and neighbors is that we are burned out on these wars. There's never a good ending because both sides are bad, and whoever we back turns out to be as bad or worse. In the meantime we spend thousands of precious US lives and untold amounts of money, and for what?

Even though Libya was smarter and quicker in the sense that the allied forces didn't try to defeat them on the ground, still, what is the outcome?

(Yes, I know there were some boots on the ground but it was primarily done from the air, and quickly.)

And shouldn't this in itself be enough reason to hold back? But if the West does go ahead once again i will bet any money you like will find the results will reflect incorrect assumptions and poor understanding of cultural differences. It doesn't take much research to realise the Iranians (who have pledged their support for Syria)aren't the least bit scared of dying in a war and on the contrary they almost expect it as the next phase of their history. (i.e. arrival of 12th Imam ) .

I agree with the first half of what you wrote, but I don't agree about the general population. The Iranian people (Persians) are nominal Shia Muslims, as interested in becoming like the West as they are supporting their Muslim leaders. It is the leadership that is radical. I don't believe any assertion that the average Persian wouldn't mind dying in a war.

The Persian people don't like their government but when they protest they are shot in the streets.

However the leaders hold the power and are bad dudes. But they are toothless tigers unless they get nukes. Yes they are bad about supplying arms to other Muslim countries, but they are Russian arms, meaning antiques. There's not one dimn thing that Iran could do right now if the Western allies attack Assad.

In fact, Iran might just give the allies the excuse they've been waiting for... ??

Speculate an Irianian esculation by way of a convential warfare attack on Sunni controlled areas of Syria, would NATO intervene?

[rgs2001uk]

Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E20130825?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637

Not surprising. My unscientific knowledge of the opinions of friends and neighbors is that we are burned out on these wars. There's never a good ending because both sides are bad, and whoever we back turns out to be as bad or worse. In the meantime we spend thousands of precious US lives and untold amounts of money, and for what?

Even though Libya was smarter and quicker in the sense that the allied forces didn't try to defeat them on the ground, still, what is the outcome?

(Yes, I know there were some boots on the ground but it was primarily done from the air, and quickly.)

And shouldn't this in itself be enough reason to hold back? But if the West does go ahead once again i will bet any money you like will find the results will reflect incorrect assumptions and poor understanding of cultural differences. It doesn't take much research to realise the Iranians (who have pledged their support for Syria)aren't the least bit scared of dying in a war and on the contrary they almost expect it as the next phase of their history. (i.e. arrival of 12th Imam ) .

I agree with the first half of what you wrote, but I don't agree about the general population. The Iranian people (Persians) are nominal Shia Muslims, as interested in becoming like the West as they are supporting their Muslim leaders. It is the leadership that is radical. I don't believe any assertion that the average Persian wouldn't mind dying in a war.

The Persian people don't like their government but when they protest they are shot in the streets.

However the leaders hold the power and are bad dudes. But they are toothless tigers unless they get nukes. Yes they are bad about supplying arms to other Muslim countries, but they are Russian arms, meaning antiques. There's not one dimn thing that Iran could do right now if the Western allies attack Assad.

In fact, Iran might just give the allies the excuse they've been waiting for... ??

The Persian people don't like their government

Not much has changed then since the days of the American puppet Shah of Iran.

might just give the allies the excuse they've been waiting for... ??

Depends what or who you mean by allies.

Why should the west do anything, although I do suspect at least one country plus the Saudis will be more than happy for the "allies" to do their dirty work for them

[Mosha]

Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E20130825?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637

Not surprising. My unscientific knowledge of the opinions of friends and neighbors is that we are burned out on these wars. There's never a good ending because both sides are bad, and whoever we back turns out to be as bad or worse. In the meantime we spend thousands of precious US lives and untold amounts of money, and for what?

Even though Libya was smarter and quicker in the sense that the allied forces didn't try to defeat them on the ground, still, what is the outcome?

(Yes, I know there were some boots on the ground but it was primarily done from the air, and quickly.)

I would say it's not only an American point of view. As a Brit I've said from day 1 it's not our problem. On BBC about a week ago, the Saudis were saying, Egypt was an Egyptian problem. Well on that basis, Syria is a Syrian issue, and it's not worth getting into a conflict with Russia and or China over.

[Chicog]

Everyone needs to remember that Assad may not be fully in control of the military.

good point.

I still have a problem seeing Assad as the author of such cruelty.

The man lived in the west, was a trained eye surgeon and never craved political power. He was brought back by his father's political cronies.

I've heard his mother is an influential figure, too.

But his brother.....

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/1880016/report-syria-chemical-blast-feared-brother-of-president-bashar-al-assad-who-has-taken-the-blame?

But either way, he's the President and the buck stops with him. After all, the opposition won about 40% of the vote in the last election, and he won 98%.

[lemoncake]

Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E20130825?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637

Not surprising. My unscientific knowledge of the opinions of friends and neighbors is that we are burned out on these wars. There's never a good ending because both sides are bad, and whoever we back turns out to be as bad or worse. In the meantime we spend thousands of precious US lives and untold amounts of money, and for what?

Even though Libya was smarter and quicker in the sense that the allied forces didn't try to defeat them on the ground, still, what is the outcome?

(Yes, I know there were some boots on the ground but it was primarily done from the air, and quickly.)

I would say it's not only an American point of view. As a Brit I've said from day 1 it's not our problem. On BBC about a week ago, the Saudis were saying, Egypt was an Egyptian problem. Well on that basis, Syria is a Syrian issue, and it's not worth getting into a conflict with Russia and or China over.

Yes and Yes, but issue at the moment and i think the most burning issue is if there are chemical weapons, its the risk of it falling into the wrong hands, ie Al Queda who then can use it worldwide

[NeverSure]

Confident Syria Used Chemicals, U.S. Mulls Action

New York Times Published: August 25, 2013 LINK

WASHINGTON — "Moving a step closer to possible American military action in Syria, a senior Obama administration official said Sunday that there was “very little doubt” that President Bashar al-Assad’s military forces had used chemical weapons against civilians last week and that a Syrian promise to allow United Nations inspectors access to the site was “too late to be credible.”

The official, in a written statement, said that “based on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, witness accounts and other facts gathered by open sources, the U.S. intelligence community, and international partners, there is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident.”

More...

[Credo]

If the weapons were used, then I would say they are already in the wrong hands.

I think anyone's hands are the wrong hands, by the way.

[jamhar]

I'm inclined to say "sit this one out" also.

But i did vote to elect officials to make decisions on my behalf.

And if they screw up, I'll vote the bastard/bitch out.

[Chicog]

It's a no-win situation. You sit it out, the Sunni hate you. You stick your nose in, the Shi'a hate you.

The only question is, is there any real value in either of them liking you? In the case of the Sunni, I'd say yes, and probably so would Israel, who get to pull far more US strings than they should.

[jpinx]

Confident Syria Used Chemicals, U.S. Mulls Action

New York Times Published: August 25, 2013 LINK

WASHINGTON — "Moving a step closer to possible American military action in Syria, a senior Obama administration official said Sunday that there was “very little doubt” that President Bashar al-Assad’s military forces had used chemical weapons against civilians last week and that a Syrian promise to allow United Nations inspectors access to the site was “too late to be credible.”

The official, in a written statement, said that “based on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, witness accounts and other facts gathered by open sources, the U.S. intelligence community, and international partners, there is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident.”

More...

Talk about itching for a fight --- <deleted> is it with people jumping to an ill-founded conclusion and then rushing in at half-cock only to end up mired in a unwinnable war and worse..... having to send body bags home..

Really - if the public can not see the press reports for the lunacy they are then I'm afraid mankind is doomed to repeat Iraq, Afghanistan, etc ad nauseum.

Does nobody learn *anything* from recent history?

[jpinx]

It's a no-win situation. You sit it out, the Sunni hate you. You stick your nose in, the Shi'a hate you.

The only question is, is there any real value in either of them liking you? In the case of the Sunni, I'd say yes, and probably so would Israel, who get to pull far more US strings than they should.

Only to point out that the factions of Islam are a bit like the factions of christianity -- they morph under local conditions into something else. A sunni in Morocco is a different thing totally to a sunni in Indonesia.

[simple1]

More light being shed on Saudi Arabian influence on US policy to address the Syrian civil war. A quote from the article below. "A senior U.S. intelligence official called the Saudis "indispensable partners on Syria" and said their efforts influenced American thinking"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323423804579024452583045962.html