Over 90,000 killed in Syrian crisis - UN

[Chopperboy]

Seems that most of the reader comments in the Guardian are saying the recent gas attack is the work of the western backed rebels.

Just another excuse to get us all of to war again.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/24/syria-cameron-obama-intervention

[Chicog]

Seems that most of the reader comments in the Guardian are saying the recent gas attack is the work of the western backed rebels.

Just another excuse to get us all of to war again.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/24/syria-cameron-obama-intervention

And the average Guardian reader of course would have access to all of the intel necessary to draw such a conclusion; amazing really considering even the UN inspectors haven't got there yet.

Alternatively, it could just be that it's a lefty rag and attracts these kind of soap dodgers.

26th August 2013:

DAMASCUS (AFP) - UN inspectors Monday headed to the site near Damascus of a suspected chemical weapons attack the opposition says was carried out by Syrian regime forces, an AFP photographer reported.

The inspectors left in a convoy of five cars, escorted by Syrian security forces. They are due to visit the Eastern Ghouta region, where the opposition says government troops killed hundreds of civilians in a in a chemical attack last week.

[midas]

Top Dem: We Will Ignore Congress on Syria Attack

Calling on President Obama to launch a cruise missile attack on Syria, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the top Democrat on the House Foreign Relations Committee, told Fox News that Congress would not be consulted on the move and that lawmakers would have to “assent” to it at a later date.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_a0QYqJnhzY

[Mosha]

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...

Question is, which Syrians?

[Scott]

A post with only quotes has been removed.

[jamhar]

U.S. would only act on Syria with international community: Hagel

.

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel attends the opening ceremony of the Pentagon's permanent Korean War …

JAKARTA (Reuters) - The United States would only take action on Syria in concert with the international community and with legal justification in response to the alleged chemical weapons attacks in Damascus, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Monday.

Hagel, speaking on a trip to Indonesia, declined to discuss U.S. military options under consideration by the White House, or to say whether he thought a military response was likely.

.......

http://news.yahoo.com/u-only-act-syria-international-community-hagel-115800238.html

I'm hoping that everyone else backs out

[midas]

U.S. would only act on Syria with international community: Hagel

.

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel attends the opening ceremony of the Pentagon's permanent Korean War …

JAKARTA (Reuters) - The United States would only take action on Syria in concert with the international community and with legal justification in response to the alleged chemical weapons attacks in Damascus, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Monday.

Hagel, speaking on a trip to Indonesia, declined to discuss U.S. military options under consideration by the White House, or to say whether he thought a military response was likely.

.......

http://news.yahoo.com/u-only-act-syria-international-community-hagel-115800238.html

I'm hoping that everyone else backs out

I bet Sen John McCain is seething about this

[nong38]

Well the UN inspectors arrived to view the chemical attack site and were fired on by snipers , so its looking like someone does not want the truth out. In the meantime the US and the UK are drawing plans for cruise missile strikes, now I find this worrying I dont know about you. The last thing the world wants is another conflict that will draw the west into it and what will the Russians and the Iranians do then?

Its terrible what is going on there but the west should be very careful at what its response is, forces on the ground would be a disaster and something we dont want, this could easily escalate out of control.

[chuckd]

U.S. would only act on Syria with international community: Hagel

.

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel attends the opening ceremony of the Pentagon's permanent Korean War …

JAKARTA (Reuters) - The United States would only take action on Syria in concert with the international community and with legal justification in response to the alleged chemical weapons attacks in Damascus, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Monday.

Hagel, speaking on a trip to Indonesia, declined to discuss U.S. military options under consideration by the White House, or to say whether he thought a military response was likely.

.......

http://news.yahoo.com/u-only-act-syria-international-community-hagel-115800238.html

I'm hoping that everyone else backs out

More "Leading from behind" by the current administration.

[jamhar]

U.S. would only act on Syria with international community: Hagel

.

...

http://news.yahoo.com/u-only-act-syria-international-community-hagel-115800238.html

I'm hoping that everyone else backs out

More "Leading from behind" by the current administration.

I edited my own post for brevity.

I dont mind leading from behind. Its normally the front runners that gets mowed down.

What kind of "leading" do you want to do chuck? Its really not our fight. Can you make a case for the US to be involved? I'm all ears.

[simple1]

It it cames down to military action, a UK analyst view of immediate military options, challanges and some NATO assets in the region at the URL below:

"If strikes were ordered, they would not be against chemical facilities as they are too mobile and present a risk of widespread contamination. Air defences would be hit first, perhaps initially those close to the Turkish border, as a warning shot. Long-range weapons would be used to avoid western casualties. "If that doesn't work they will start hammering away at the wider Syrian air defences," said Heyman. "That won't be as easy as Libya, but Nato aircraft would be able to take them out in seven days, I believe."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/25/syria-west-military-options-generals-jordan

[jamhar]

U.S. would only act on Syria with international community: Hagel

.

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel attends the opening ceremony of the Pentagon's permanent Korean War …

JAKARTA (Reuters) - The United States would only take action on Syria in concert with the international community and with legal justification in response to the alleged chemical weapons attacks in Damascus, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Monday.

Hagel, speaking on a trip to Indonesia, declined to discuss U.S. military options under consideration by the White House, or to say whether he thought a military response was likely.

.......

http://news.yahoo.com/u-only-act-syria-international-community-hagel-115800238.html

I'm hoping that everyone else backs out

I bet Sen John McCain is seething about this

I bet he is.

But i'm also a McCain fan. Dont always agree, but I see him as constructive most of the time.

On a different note,

midas,

thanks for posts. I dont agree with you most of the time, but I like hearing from people with different perspective. And thanks for putting up the back up information, I gave you sh*t about it a while back. And I'm big enough to admit that your recent posts have had backup. Nicely done buddy. (if i can call you that lol)

now lets get back to disagreeing!!!

[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.)

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.

There would be no conflict with Russia or China. Neither has the horsepower to engage the Western allies for long, short of using nukes. They aren't even being considered as the allies think about a possible Syrian attack. Countries such as Syria who align themselves with Russia will eventually learn that they picked the wrong side.

[NeverSure]

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

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

There has long been head scratching about whether the allies should take out those bunkers in Iran where they are trying to develop nukes. That and the fact that Iran keeps supplying arms to terrorists make them a rich target. The US has a new massive bunker buster bomb that can be carried on a B-1 stealth bomber. It's tempting to use a few of those since the locations of the bunkers are known.

It could stop there, or the allies could decide to take out the air fields and some major bridges and the harbor while they are at it.

And I said "might" in response to a comment that Iran might try to get involved in an allied attack on Syria. They "might" get hit back.

[Ulysses G.]

The last thing the world wants is another conflict that will draw the west into it and what will the Russians and the Iranians do then?

The Russians have said that they will not get involved militarily and the Iranians already have troops in Syria. There is not a lot that they can do outside of that.

[simple1]

The Russians have said that they will not get involved militarily and the Iranians already have troops in Syria. There is not a lot that they can do outside of that.

Iran has twice said that it was sending combat troops to Syria, but did that actually occur? From media reports their are members from the Al Quds Brigade in Syria in advisory and training roles, not actual fighting

[Lancelot]

Gassing human beings is horrible, barbaric and despicable.

But how is this a security interest of the US? Or Europe? The Khemer Rouge murdered far more people but the US -and the rest of the world- did nothing.

Where are the regional powers? Russia and China crave international prestige, where is their leadership to resolve this brutal slaughter?

And who are the rebels?

[chuckd]

U.S. would only act on Syria with international community: Hagel

.

...

http://news.yahoo.com/u-only-act-syria-international-community-hagel-115800238.html

I'm hoping that everyone else backs out

More "Leading from behind" by the current administration.

I edited my own post for brevity.

I dont mind leading from behind. Its normally the front runners that gets mowed down.

What kind of "leading" do you want to do chuck? Its really not our fight. Can you make a case for the US to be involved? I'm all ears.

According to this article, Obama doesn't know what to do.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama hasn't decided on Syria response

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/08/obama-hasnt-decided-on-syria-response-171243.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My personal opinion is the US should butt out of this little fracas. It is a civil war and both sides are bad. Whoever gets involved will walk away with bloody noses and absolutely nothing will have been done to solve the problem.

Obama opened his alligator mouth in 2012 about the "red line" and finds his hummingbird arse overloaded by his own words.

He is now saying whatever the International community decides is what the US will do.

In other words, leading from behind...just like Libya.

Let's hope he at least makes a faint attempt to follow the US Constitution and get Congress involved in his decision to go to war.

[Scott]

This thread is not about the US, Congress or the Constitutions. Continued off-topic posting will result in suspension.

The thread is about the current situation in Syria.

[jpinx]

The current situation in Syria is a civil war with possibly some actions which would have been contrary to some UN and other international agreements concerning types of weapons to not be used. As a matter of fact, Syria did NOT sign these agreements so the rest of you can butt out and play in your own back yard.

[midas]

U.S. would only act on Syria with international community: Hagel

.

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel attends the opening ceremony of the Pentagon's permanent Korean War …

JAKARTA (Reuters) - The United States would only take action on Syria in concert with the international community and with legal justification in response to the alleged chemical weapons attacks in Damascus, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Monday.

Hagel, speaking on a trip to Indonesia, declined to discuss U.S. military options under consideration by the White House, or to say whether he thought a military response was likely.

.......

http://news.yahoo.com/u-only-act-syria-international-community-hagel-115800238.html

I'm hoping that everyone else backs out

I bet Sen John McCain is seething about this

I bet he is.

But i'm also a McCain fan. Dont always agree, but I see him as constructive most of the time.

On a different note,

midas,

thanks for posts. I dont agree with you most of the time, but I like hearing from people with different perspective. And thanks for putting up the back up information, I gave you sh*t about it a while back. And I'm big enough to admit that your recent posts have had backup. Nicely done buddy. (if i can call you that lol)

now lets get back to disagreeing!!!

Thanks jamhar

it was seeing how John McCain treated Chuck Hagel during his confirmation hearings that I found surprising, particularly because I understand not so long ago they were best buddies?

[midas]

The current situation in Syria is a civil war with possibly some actions which would have been contrary to some UN and other international agreements concerning types of weapons to not be used. As a matter of fact, Syria did NOT sign these agreements so the rest of you can butt out and play in your own back yard.

How bizarre to on the one hand rely on the findings of United Nations weapons inspectors to establish the truth, and yet when it comes to the international players following the rules before engagement they intend to simply bypass the United Nations just because it doesn't suit them?

As Sergei Lavrov quite rightly asks where would the international legal authority be for this kind of action if it they don't get sanctioned by the security council first?

[jpinx]

The current situation in Syria is a civil war with possibly some actions which would have been contrary to some UN and other international agreements concerning types of weapons to not be used. As a matter of fact, Syria did NOT sign these agreements so the rest of you can butt out and play in your own back yard.

How bizarre to on the one hand rely on the findings of United Nations weapons inspectors to establish the truth, and yet when it comes to the international players following the rules before engagement they intend to simply bypass the United Nations just because it doesn't suit them?

As Sergei Lavrov quite rightly asks where would the international legal authoritybe for this kind of action if it they dont get sanctioned by the security council first?

Problem is they are NOT "relying" on any findings - they are pre-empting the findings. By-passing the UN is academic since the rules do not apply to Syria - one of the few countries who decided NOT to sign up for that specific agreement.

So what have we got now - a bunch of busy-bodies sticking their noses into other peoples affairs and shouting "FOUL!!", even when they do not have the same rule book.

I said it before -- butt out and leave Syria alone.

[midas]

The current situation in Syria is a civil war with possibly some actions which would have been contrary to some UN and other international agreements concerning types of weapons to not be used. As a matter of fact, Syria did NOT sign these agreements so the rest of you can butt out and play in your own back yard.

How bizarre to on the one hand rely on the findings of United Nations weapons inspectors to establish the truth, and yet when it comes to the international players following the rules before engagement they intend to simply bypass the United Nations just because it doesn't suit them?

As Sergei Lavrov quite rightly asks where would the international legal authoritybe for this kind of action if it they dont get sanctioned by the security council first?

Problem is they are NOT "relying" on any findings - they are pre-empting the findings. By-passing the UN is academic since the rules do not apply to Syria - one of the few countries who decided NOT to sign up for that specific agreement.

So what have we got now - a bunch of busy-bodies sticking their noses into other peoples affairs and shouting "FOUL!!", even when they do not have the same rule book.

I said it before -- butt out and leave Syria alone.

It was planned a long time ago . Listen at 1.27 minutes

[jpinx]

I think I might have posted this before, but it's very appropriate....

The non Muslim world has singularly failed to grasp that Islam and western-style democracy are incompatible -- even moderate Islam. Here's a couple of references for some insights...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23810527

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23607302

[Chicog]

I think I might have posted this before, but it's very appropriate....

democracy-arriving.jpg

The non Muslim world has singularly failed to grasp that Islam and western-style democracy are incompatible -- even moderate Islam. Here's a couple of references for some insights...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23810527

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23607302

I think the Muslim world is still struggling to understand it as well. Can you name me one true Islamic "democracy"?

[simple1]

The current situation in Syria is a civil war with possibly some actions which would have been contrary to some UN and other international agreements concerning types of weapons to not be used. As a matter of fact, Syria did NOT sign these agreements so the rest of you can butt out and play in your own back yard.

How bizarre to on the one hand rely on the findings of United Nations weapons inspectors to establish the truth, and yet when it comes to the international players following the rules before engagement they intend to simply bypass the United Nations just because it doesn't suit them?

As Sergei Lavrov quite rightly asks where would the international legal authority be for this kind of action if it they don't get sanctioned by the security council first?

Whilst Syria is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, the UN views the deployment of such weapons as a crime against humanity that requires action against the offending State.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says any use of chemical weapons in Syria would amount to a "crime against humanity" that would result in "serious consequences" if the allegations prove to be true. Mr. Ban made the comments during a visit to Seoul, adding that use of chemical weapons under any circumstance would violate international law.

http://www.voanews.com/content/un-chemical-weapons-in-syria-would-be-crime-against-humanity/1735312.html

[jpinx]

I think I might have posted this before, but it's very appropriate....

democracy-arriving.jpg

The non Muslim world has singularly failed to grasp that Islam and western-style democracy are incompatible -- even moderate Islam. Here's a couple of references for some insights...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23810527

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23607302

I think the Muslim world is still struggling to understand it as well. Can you name me one true Islamic "democracy"?

No -- there are plenty of autocracies and monarchies, but democracy is actually contrary to sharia law. Look what happens in Egypt since the times of Nasser - attempted western democracy has failed in the face of Islam so many times. UN is dominated by "Christian, Western Democrats". What chance does the muslim world have of being understood by a group of people who have never opened the Koran, let alone tried to understand it.

I am most certainly not saying which is right and which is wrong, each to their own. I have worked and lived amongst muslims several times for long periods and I have no problem with their culture. The thing is to remember that they play by very different rules to the "west" and one must respect that in order to get along with them.

For what it's worth - all the muslims I know are dismayed at the on-going bloodshed, but they vehemently defend their right to self-determination -- at whatever cost.

[jpinx]

The current situation in Syria is a civil war with possibly some actions which would have been contrary to some UN and other international agreements concerning types of weapons to not be used. As a matter of fact, Syria did NOT sign these agreements so the rest of you can butt out and play in your own back yard.

How bizarre to on the one hand rely on the findings of United Nations weapons inspectors to establish the truth, and yet when it comes to the international players following the rules before engagement they intend to simply bypass the United Nations just because it doesn't suit them?

As Sergei Lavrov quite rightly asks where would the international legal authority be for this kind of action if it they don't get sanctioned by the security council first?

Whilst Syria is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, the UN views the deployment of such weapons as a crime against humanity that requires action against the offending State.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says any use of chemical weapons in Syria would amount to a "crime against humanity" that would result in "serious consequences" if the allegations prove to be true. Mr. Ban made the comments during a visit to Seoul, adding that use of chemical weapons under any circumstance would violate international law.

http://www.voanews.com/content/un-chemical-weapons-in-syria-would-be-crime-against-humanity/1735312.html

Crimes Against Humanity --- by what law, under what courts juridiction, penalised by what authority ?

Threatening "serious consequences" to a country already killing it's own people by the hundreds is a bit facile. As soon as you start to implement those "consequences" you are sucked into the maelstrom with no escape. There is NO winner in this situation. Keep out, just take care of refugees as best can be done. They understand the situation much better than you do.

[Chicog]

An Islamic democracy invariably turns into a self-perpetuating theocracy.