And how to target 'the Assad regime'?

I'm mostly against intervening in Syria, but because of Obama's red line, we are going to have to do something. It would not bother me a bit if we bomb Assad's airforce, runways, air defences,etc. into nothingness and then bug out of the whole thing.

Let's say we did just that . Would it bring down the regime? If it did, who would come to power, and what would be the ramifications of that change in power/authority?

 

 

Obviously Assad regime targets for the bombings. 

and a little civilian collateral damage won't hurt

 

War is messy. Obama didn't start it. You want to advocate isolationism, go for it. It's not practical in my view. 

 

 

I'm not advocating isolationism, but please expand on your comment about it not being practical.  If ever a country could be isolationist, it would be the US (of A). It has been gifted by God/ Bhudda/ Allah/ Shiva with the most supreme geography and climate imaginable.

Typical delusional teaparty nostalgia. This ain't 1776 mate!

Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Let's say we did just that . Would it bring down the regime?

I am more concerned with reducing Assad's advantage while convincing him to stop using chemical weapons.

I'm mostly against intervening in Syria, but because of Obama's red line, we are going to have to do something.

Why? It is not like Obama has a good track record for ever keeping his word on anything.

He can just use one of his tired old excuses.

I'm mostly against intervening in Syria, but because of Obama's red line, we are going to have to do something.

Why? It is not like Obama has a good track record for ever keeping his word on anything.

He can just use one of his tired old excuses.

Yup. That red line can be written off as just another lie.

My belief is the US should stay well clear of any involvement in Syria. The current administration has done enough damage in the Middle East.

My position is not partisan. It is pro American and pro doing the right thing to punish Assad. It's interesting to hear the partisan comments from American Obama demonizers here. I reckon the same people would be pro punish Assad if there was a right winger in power.

...

I thought you were so desensitized to human suffering that you didn't know the difference between a Syrian child being killed by a US (of A) smart bomb and a gay whore dying from someting he caught in the Glory Hole.

...

I see you are doubling down on over the top personal attacks. First I'm destroying America and now I don't know what, some kind of weird anti-gay slur.

...

I thought you were so desensitized to human suffering that you didn't know the difference between a Syrian child being killed by a US (of A) smart bomb and a gay whore dying from someting he caught in the Glory Hole.

...

I see you are doubling down on over the top personal attacks. First I'm destroying America and now I don't know what, some kind of weird anti-gay slur.

My point is this. Eveything you talk about is about "punishing Assad". 100,000 people have died here man and you want to lose God knows how many more lives to "punish" him? Mount a humanitarian effort to save lives. I understand THAT. But to mobilize fleets and kill Americans and locals to punish a dictator. That seems a bit extreme. Why are the lives that will be lost in the process worth less than his?

Whatever can be done on a humanitarian aid basis, I'm all for it. Killing Kansas farm boys and innocent Syrians going after a dictator that doesn't happen to be amongst our friends this year? No thanks.

Nobody is talking about getting involved in a ground war there.

Still not clear what dead gay whores had to do with your point, and it seems you didn't either.

The response from Obama is coming, approve of it or not.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Monday that Syria’s use of chemical weapons is “undeniable,” and that “this international norm cannot be violated without consequences.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kerry-obama-determined-to-hold-syria-accountable-for-using-chemical-weapons/2013/08/26/599450c2-0e70-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html

My position is not partisan. It is pro American and pro doing the right thing to punish Assad. It's interesting to hear the partisan comments from American Obama demonizers here. I reckon the same people would be pro punish Assad if there was a right winger in power.

It is kind of interesting to see people who would be adamantly protesting this if a Republican was in power, supporting Obama 100% because he is "on their side." I don't mean just on this forum either.

The response from Obama is coming, approve of it or not.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Monday that [/size]Syrias use of chemical weapons is undeniable, and that this international norm cannot be violated without consequences.[/size]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kerry-obama-determined-to-hold-syria-accountable-for-using-chemical-weapons/2013/08/26/599450c2-0e70-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html

From the article

"In a strongly worded assessment, Kerry said that evidence now being gathered by United Nations experts on the ground in Syria was important but was not necessary to prove what is already grounded in facts, informed by conscience and guided by common sense."

This is a display of the ignorance & lack of responsibility shown by this administration.

Proof is important but not necessary because we own a crystal ball & decide?

It is hard to believe a country would utter such ignorance as license to take lives.

To then talk about morality?

do you really think that any of the UN top lapdogs, nowadays Ban Ki-Moon, are allowed of independent thinking or publicise their personal opinions? there was only one who dared to do that, namely Dag Hammarskjöld, and that was the reason why he was killed.

I doubt it, and I agree with you even more, Naam, now that I've seen Kerry's latest speech.

The response from Obama is coming, approve of it or not.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Monday that [/size]Syria’s use of chemical weapons is “undeniable,” and that “this international norm cannot be violated without consequences.”[/size]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kerry-obama-determined-to-hold-syria-accountable-for-using-chemical-weapons/2013/08/26/599450c2-0e70-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html

Unless Kerry has evidence which none of the rest of us have, he is being carried away by his own rhetoric here. So are Cameron and Fabius. I think all three of them are believing what they want to believe..... "Assad is bad, rebels are good (especially the Al Qaeda group, of course!)".

What do you all want, a slowly, or rapidly, intensifying war against Assad, Iran, and Russia? Heaven help us if we get into that scenario.

Unless Kerry has evidence which none of the rest of us have, he is being carried away by his own rhetoric here. So are Cameron and Fabius. I think all three of them are believing what they want to believe..... "Assad is bad, rebels are good (especially the Al Qaeda group, of course!)".

IB,

it is embarrassing listening to the warmongering clowns and their blatant lies and/or assumptions. based on indications it seems chemical warfare was the case but even the experts are not sure. unanswered is the question "who dunnit?"

but the latter does not stop Kerry, Cameron or Fabius to make wild assumptions and demands. absolutely ridiculous are the various claims and demands.

Kerry: "the US is convinced that Assad.. undeniable..."

Cameron: "Obama has to act..."

Jingthing: "Shall Obama bomb Syria? I think so."

i think

Unless Kerry has evidence which none of the rest of us have, he is being carried away by his own rhetoric here. So are Cameron and Fabius. I think all three of them are believing what they want to believe..... "Assad is bad, rebels are good (especially the Al Qaeda group, of course!)".

I don't think that anyone thinks that the rebels are "good", but a lot of people think that Assad's government is "bad" and with plenty of evidence to back it up.

I am pretty sure that Kerry does have evidence which none of the rest of us have, he is the Secretary of State.

Unless Kerry has evidence which none of the rest of us have, he is being carried away by his own rhetoric here. So are Cameron and Fabius. I think all three of them are believing what they want to believe..... "Assad is bad, rebels are good (especially the Al Qaeda group, of course!)".

I don't think that anyone thinks that the rebels are "good", but a lot of people think that Assad's government is "bad" and with plenty of evidence to back it up.

I am pretty sure that Kerry does have evidence which none of the rest of us have, he is the Secretary of State.

Powell was Secretary of State and bullshitted the UN with pictures allegedly related to WMD. their quality was so bad that they could have shown anything! and that at a time when the cameras of U.S. spy satellites were since years able to make legible pictures of a vehicle's number plate.

i watched the liar live on TV when he presented his rubbish

The response from Obama is coming, approve of it or not.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Monday that Syria’s use of chemical weapons is “undeniable,” and that “this international norm cannot be violated without consequences.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kerry-obama-determined-to-hold-syria-accountable-for-using-chemical-weapons/2013/08/26/599450c2-0e70-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html

Obama doesn't KNOW what to do.

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

Obama hasn't decided on Syria response

By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 8/26/13 3:55 PM EDT

President Obama hasn't yet decided how to respond to Syria's apparent use of chemical weapons against civilians, the White House said Monday, as the administration ratcheted up its rhetoric against Bashar al-Assad's regime.

"We are continuing to review potential responses, to consult with our allies and partners, and with Congress as we make that review," press secretary Jay Carney said.

But Obama "has not made that decision" about how to react.

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

My position is not partisan. It is pro American and pro doing the right thing to punish Assad. It's interesting to hear the partisan comments from American Obama demonizers here. I reckon the same people would be pro punish Assad if there was a right winger in power.

It is kind of interesting to see people who would be adamantly protesting this if a Republican was in power, supporting Obama 100% because he is "on their side." I don't mean just on this forum either.

I can only speak for myself. I think any president should have acted SOONER. I supported Clinton's action in Kosovo. I find this similar.

Powell was Secretary of State and bullshitted the UN with pictures allegedly related to WMD. their quality was so bad that they could have shown anything! and that at a time when the cameras of U.S. spy satellites were since years able to make legible pictures of a vehicle's number plate.

i watched the liar live on TV when he presented his rubbish

He is black though so you are not allowed to criticize him.

I have seen many tragic photos of civilian casualties, claimed by certain rebel factions to be due to the use of 'gas'. On some UK news programmes the gas has been identified as Saran. But the photos I have seen show symptoms that are at variance to Saran synptoms - so I have discounted the identification.

Some form of gas may have been used - and there have been other photos of supposed delivery missiles/shells, published by the same rebel faction(s). I have not been able to identify any markings on these artifacts and do not know enough about them to be able to identify the source of manufacture.

The one big puzzle to me is that there have been no photos to my knowledge of any large number of fighting men being injured in these attacks. All the victims seem to be women and children. I would have expected the gas to have killed as many fighters as non-combatants - or was the gas released in an area where there were no rebels or government troops? If so, then why on earth would the Assad regime use it? I can see a great publicity opportunity for the rebels, but no logical reason for the government troops to do so.

But maybe I don't know enough to make any judgement on this issue.

All I can really say is that we in the West should not interfere in this conflict where there seem to be no real 'front', just guerilla warfare throughout the country. We should step up efforts on providing help for refugees and civilian populations in general, including the provision of security to refugee camps both inside and outside Syria, but not one step further.

If the UN inspectors are allowed to take samples from 'victims', there is a good chance that they can identify the agent used, but little hope that they can identify the culprit. There were a number of youngish men on the pictures I saw, but nobody identifiable as a combatant.

The artefacts were anonymous bits of tubing... could be anything, anywhere.

I can't see what Assad or any of the rebel groups has to gain by this whole episode except to point the finger of blame at someone else. Or perhaps it is the Muslim Brotherhood trying to get the Western powers involved?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800

Russia has said military intervention in Syria would have "catastrophic consequences" for the region.

"Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich on Tuesday called on the international community to show "prudence" over the crisis and observe international law.

"Attempts to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa," he said in a statement."

It's nice to be able to agree with Putin for once!

The U.N. team is now in Damascus collecting the data.(as of August 26th,2013)

I personally believe they will determine that Chemical weapons were used by someone.

I doubt very much they will be able to prove exactly who used them.

At best they will only be ale to say that the rockets that were used to deploy the chemical weapons were similar to those known to be supplied previously to the Syrian government (probably Russian made).

The Syrians are already claiming they "detected" traces of chemicals in some tunnels in rebel occupied areas .... no verification there (or maybe not possible to verify that fact anyhow).

But that "maybe used by the Syrian government and similar to the ones known to have been previously supplied by another country" to the Syrian government will be enough justification for the U.K and the U.S. to start limited military strikes against the Syrian military forces.

Of course, even if the Syrian government was involved, those actually involved won't be the ones targeted.

The targets will be such sites as:

• Government defense buildings (Defense Ministry, Presidential Palace Compound, etc.)
• Other government military targets such as barracks, military airfields, POV storage sites, and such.
• Military airfields and runways (to stop aircraft from taking off and landing there).
• Their air defense system and radar sites (to prepare for the establishment of a no-fly zone later).

Cruise Missiles launched from offshore will be used at least initially. Basically the same as in Iraq .... but in Iraq the initial wave that took out much of the Iraq air defense radars was U.S, Blackhawk helicopters flying from Saudi bases.

The U.K. helped with that, but don't think either the U.S. or the U.K. will use helicopters this time.

Syria is a internal civil war, and that is always messy. Brother against brother always causes more deaths than any war from the outside.

P.S. WMAD was NOT the reason for Iraq intervention, it was the excuse sold to the American public. You need to distinguish between the real reason and the reason the U.S told it's own people was the reason. (That includes the U.K. too).

...

It's nice to be able to agree with Putin for once!

Russia is a close ally of Assad. What did you expect?

I have, within the last ten minutes, been watching the BBC News - a press conference with the Syrian Foreign Minister.

He categorically denies that the Assad regime has deployed any chemical weapons - and that such an act has not been contemplated against any part of the Syrian population. He further points out that the US has broken off talks with Russia, Syria and other interested parties and has instead gone to a state of military preparedness, without any attempt to find a political solution.

The next item on the news was that the US is going to exceed it's budget allowance by mid-October.

Is there any liklihood that Obama is trying to take the electorate's mind off his record of vast overspending / failure to close Gitmo / failure in Afghanistan / etc,, etc. by starting yet another war? And taking that stupid bald-headed monkey William Hague along with him?

The one big puzzle to me is that there have been no photos to my knowledge of any large number of fighting men being injured in these attacks. All the victims seem to be women and children. I would have expected the gas to have killed as many fighters as non-combatants - or was the gas released in an area where there were no rebels or government troops? If so, then why on earth would the Assad regime use it? I can see a great publicity opportunity for the rebels, but no logical reason for the government troops to do so.

To scare the rebels into quitting. I would think that would be one of the main reasons to use chemical weapons in the first place when the government is already so much better armed.

Just in from Drudge Report. Looks like the Six Day War is going to be shortened to the Two Day War.

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

After Syria chemical allegations, Obama considering limited military strike

By Karen DeYoung and Anne Gearan

President Obama is weighing a military strike against Syria that would be of limited scope and duration, designed to serve as punishment for Syria’s use of chemical weapons and as a deterrent, while keeping the United States out of deeper involvement in that country’s civil war, according to senior administration officials.

The timing of such an attack, which would probably last no more than two days and involve sea-launched cruise missiles — or, possibly, long-range bombers — striking military targets not directly related to Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, would be dependent on three factors: completion of an intelligence report assessing Syrian government culpability in last week’s alleged chemical attack; ongoing consultation with allies and Congress; and determination of a justification under international law.

“We’re actively looking at the various legal angles that would inform a decision,” said an official who spoke about the presidential deliberations on the condition of anonymity.......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kerry-obama-determined-to-hold-syria-accountable-for-using-chemical-weapons/2013/08/26/599450c2-0e70-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html?hpid=z1

It would seem there is NOT a public groundswell of support for any action to be taken...even two days of it.

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

New poll: Syria intervention even less popular than Congress

By Max Fisher, Published: August 26 at 2:37 pm

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has finally found something that Americans like even less than Congress: the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Syria. Only 9 percent of respondents said that the Obama administration should intervene militarily in Syria; a RealClearPolitics poll average finds Congress has a 15 percent approval rating, making the country’s most hated political body almost twice as popular.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was taken Aug.19-23, the very same week that horrific reports emerged strongly suggesting that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people, potentially killing hundreds or even thousands of civilians.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/new-poll-syria-intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/

A leader leads, popular or not.