Over 90,000 killed in Syrian crisis - UN

[Robby nz]

When I first read about chemical weapons I thought about 'weapons of mass destruction' an excuse for a previous invasion.

Has there ever been a time when the US and others have 'intervened' that it hasn't cost more lives?

[simple1]

I would say it about to go down.

KEVIN Rudd suspended his campaign to attend a national security briefing in Canberra on the unfolding chemical weapons crisis in Syria.

The Prime Minister said in Sydney yesterday he was aware of media reports that the US was readying missile strikes on Syrian government forces, but said Australia would not rush into responding.

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/rudd-halts-campaigning-for-national-security-meeting-on-syria/story-fn9qr68y-1226703274257

Other than words, what meaningfull response can be acheived by Australia, just BS by Rudd

Uhm . . . Not about Australia doing anything . . . Just an early indication that US was actually taking serious steps toward action. You were not seeing forest for the trees.

Australia, incoming chair of the Security Council, backs action against Syria, with or without UN approval. Foreign Minister Bob Carr said that if it was proved the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons, the world had a mandate to respond, even if the United Nations failed to agree on such action.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0827/Australia-backs-action-against-Syria-with-or-without-UN-approval

Rudd has also stated he will not permit Syrian refugees entry to Australia

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted as well as replies.

[F430murci]

A surgical strike to take out chemical weapons and send a message to the Syrians not to use them again is acceptable IMO.

I think even Russia would probably accept that, too. And if they do, China will.

Iran will bleat, but no one gives a stuff what those mad mullahs think anyway.

Correct, Putin won't do <deleted>, but Russia has to speak out as they have done and will publicly oppose.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/world/middleeast/putin-on-syria.html?_r=0

[Chicog]

Well the Russians are sending ships to the Med..... maybe we have another Cuba on our hands?

http://m.sky.com/skynews/article/1134531

[F430murci]

Well the Russians are sending ships to the Med..... maybe we have another Cuba on our hands?

http://m.sky.com/skynews/article/1134531

Oh jeez, relax. No Cuban missile crisis. No WWIII. No nuclear holocaust just around the corner.

At most, Putin messing with Bama just because he knows he can. 2 ships is just a message if even that. Now if he sends a whole fleet and surrounds our ships . . .

[Publicus]

Well the Russians are sending ships to the Med..... maybe we have another Cuba on our hands?

http://m.sky.com/skynews/article/1134531

Relax.

You've been cool about things so far, so you should have no problem to hold steady.

Max Boot, a senior fellow in national security studies at the private Council on Foreign Relations in New York, founded in 1921, has pretty well analyzed the regional ramifications of a military action against the Assad regime for their use of chemical weapons.

Here are some of his wide ranging analysis..

As for Russia, yes, Moscow has a naval station in Syria, but presumably U.S. aircraft would not target Russian facilities. Short of that, it's hard to see how anything we might do would start any kind of conflict with Russia. This isn't the Cuban missile crisis, and Russia would not go to war to defend the Assad regime

[jpinx]

Good news for reasoned thinking -- UK will not do anything military.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

[simple1]

Good news for reasoned thinking -- UK will not do anything military.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

From the BBC report that sums up the US pressure on the UK.

"He said he and the prime minister were "disappointed" with the result of the Commons vote which he said would harm Britain's relationship with Washington. "It's certainly going to place some strain on the special relationship".

[jpinx]

Good news for reasoned thinking -- UK will not do anything military.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

From the BBC report that sums up the US pressure on the UK.

"He said he and the prime minister were "disappointed" with the result of the Commons vote which he said would harm Britain's relationship with Washington. "It's certainly going to place some strain on the special relationship".

Your quote could be mis-construed. That is UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond speaking. I haven't heard any comment from the US side yet.

A few other snippets from the same article that make interesting reading vis-a-vis the "democratic process" which should set all sorts of bells ringing around the world....

"The Americans understand the Parliamentary process. Perhaps they have been surprised by the scale of opposition."

.....and........

Conservative rebel Douglas Carswell said: "There is not now going to be British military involvement in Syria, but that is a good thing, the system works."

Now the UK waits to see what their young cousins will do next. Personally I reckon Obama should take it to a vote and let the people decide -- as they did in UK.

[Publicus]

Good news for reasoned thinking -- UK will not do anything military.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

From the BBC report that sums up the US pressure on the UK.

"He said he and the prime minister were "disappointed" with the result of the Commons vote which he said would harm Britain's relationship with Washington. "It's certainly going to place some strain on the special relationship".

Your quote could be mis-construed. That is UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond speaking. I haven't heard any comment from the US side yet.

A few other snippets from the same article that make interesting reading vis-a-vis the "democratic process" which should set all sorts of bells ringing around the world....

"The Americans understand the Parliamentary process. Perhaps they have been surprised by the scale of opposition."

.....and........

Conservative rebel Douglas Carswell said: "There is not now going to be British military involvement in Syria, but that is a good thing, the system works."

Now the UK waits to see what their young cousins will do next. Personally I reckon Obama should take it to a vote and let the people decide -- as they did in UK.

This is the direct consequence of George Bush and Tony Blair poisoning the well with their WMD in Iraq - Words of Mass Deception.

The POTUS has 60 days authority under the War Powers Resolution of 1974 to initiate military action on his own before he must go to the Congress, either to seek approval to continue or to cease operations and provide a justification for initiating the military action.

Again, because Bush and Blair poisoned public trust about WMD in Iraq, the Congress doesn't want to vote on this issue, preferring the president, who is commander in chief, to act on his own and to explain himself to the American people. Congress got burned in its vote over WMD in Iraq and doesn't want to get burned again on this one, should it go sideways.

Congress would vote yes, but doesn't want to go on the record with such a vote. House Speaker John Boehner sent a letter to Obama with 14 questions but is not calling a vote. The Senate is lying low on this one even more so than the House.

Prez Obama is on his own at this point. So the best thing for him is to fire off missiles for several days, declare victory and head off next Tuesday to the G-20 summit in Russia.

REPORT: America Is 'Livid' With The British And Could Launch Syria Strikes On Its Own

The abrupt halt in British momentum towards military action left the diplomatic choreography in chaos and US officials "livid" with the British, according to Western diplomatic sources at the United Nations in New York.

"The Americans are livid with us," said one Western diplomat, who added British officials were astonished that the Prime Minister could have made such an "enormous miscalculation" amid such high stakes.

A furious-looking Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the UN, refused to answer questions on Thursday as she left a meeting of the Security Council permanent members, but later said on Twitter that the Syrian regime "must be held accountable, which the Security Council has refused to do for two years", adding "The US is considering an appropriate response."

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10274955/America-could-launch-military-strikes-against-Syria-without-waiting-for-Britain.html#ixzz2dPpWx5aa

[lomatopo]

Samantha Power, born in Ireland by the way so understand her lividity/lividness with those namby-pamby Brits - who is Ms. Rice's successor at the U.N., and Susan Rice, National Security Advisor, seem hell-bent on asserting their will on the Syria situation. Ms. Rice seems especially "scorned", presumably with an eye on future political positions, while attempting to distance herself from the Benghazi incident. She seems to have the POTUS's "ear" so to speak.