'No doubt' Syria used chemical arms, says US Vice-President Joe Biden

[NeverSure]

Actually, it is far from unanimous among Republicans - many are in favor of a devastating strike - and many Democrats are also against intervention. One of the main complaints about it is that there have been so many leaks by the administration - nothing new there - about our tactics that Assad is moving all his assets. Most likely, a very limited, cosmetic strike (which has been extensively advertised) will accomplish very little to degrade Assad's capabilities.

It is looking more and more like this complete screw-up has little to do with American national interests and is all about saving Obama from being humiliated personally because Assad called his bluff on the red line.

The present NBC scientific survey finds that 58% of Americans believe a red line should exist concerning the use of chemical weapons, and that a country that uses chemical weapons should be punished, to include the possibility of military action by the United States.

This is a matter of the views of the president and the people. The views in this matter coincide.

There's nothing personal in this.

NBC poll: Nearly 80 percent want congressional approval on Syria

Fifty percent of Americans believe the U.S. should not intervene

... a whopping 79 percent of respondents — including nearly 7 in 10 Democrats and 90 percent of Republicans — say the president should be required to receive congressional approval before taking any action.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/30/20256971-nbc-poll-nearly-80-percent-want-congressional-approval-on-syria?lite

If Syria were an Iraq type of military operation, which the limited and focused action Prez Obama proposes against Assad in Syria is not.

This is not Iraq.

Republican party House Speaker John Boehner sent a 14 question letter to Prez Obama concerning the missile strike option but has not called a vote of the House.

The Senate leadership of Democrats and Republicans have not called for a vote of that body.

The American people are not clamoring for a vote by the Congress, which anyway is in recess scattered all over the country and the world.

The sentiment anyway indicates the Congress would vote yes.

Either way, the War Powers Resolution of 1974 authorizes the president to initiate a military action on his own for up to 60 days before seeking the approval of the Congress, either to continue the military action or to terminate it while providing a written justification of the action.

The American people know and understand this long standing principle and practice.

Prez Obama has the constitutional authority to act in this matter in his capacity as commander in chief. Because this is not Iraq, the Congress are bystanders until their legal and constitutional role kicks in 60 days after the fact.

Nice job of bobbing and weaving, Publicus. A vast majority of Americans want congressional approval. They therefore want some debate.

Perhaps that small majority of Americans do believe there should be a red line regarding the use of chemical weapons.

That doesn't mean that my friends and neighbors are convinced that Assad, and only Assad is guilty of it.

Again, an overwhelming majority of Americans want it aired out in Congress. Yes the law doesn't require it, but it's incorrect to ignore the clear fact that Americans aren't all set to go at it.

If Obama attacks, he's on his own with very little support at the moment.

[Ulysses G.]

If Obama attacks, he's on his own with very little support at the moment.

Why quote a poll that says that Americans are for a taking a stand on chemical weapons while ignoring the fact that they also want congressional approval for any military action concerning it?

[JDGRUEN]

If Obama attacks, he's on his own with very little support at the moment.

Why quote a poll that says that Americans are for a taking a stand on chemical weapons while ignoring the fact that they also want congressional approval for any military action concerning it?

I agree ... when someone starts quoting a poll - throw it all out there ... post the link with all the information ... the good - the bad and the ugly ...

Cherry Picking a poll is same as cheating on the final exam ...

Edited August 31, 2013 by JDGRUEN

[Publicus]

The president has not called the Congress back into session from its August recess, which he is constitutionally empowered to do.

The Republican John Boehner who is Speaker of the House has not called the House back from its recess to vote on the issue.

The Senate majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid and the Republican minority leader, Sen Mitch McConnell have not called the Senate back into session from its August recess to vote on this issue.

You need to take up the matter with the above named distinguished gentlemen.

The Congress is scheduled to return to business on September 9th, but maybe the Congress will be called back into session before then.

Why don't you guys go ahead and see what you can do to get a vote on this asap, either before Sept 9th or before the fireworks begin, whichever happens first?

[Ulysses G.]

John Boehner is not the one ordering a military strike on Syria without congressional approval.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[NeverSure]

The president has not called the Congress back into session from its August recess, which he is constitutionally empowered to do.

The Republican John Boehner who is Speaker of the House has not called the House back from its recess to vote on the issue.

The Senate majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid and the Republican minority leader, Sen Mitch McConnell have not called the Senate back into session from its August recess to vote on this issue.

You need to take up the matter with the above named distinguished gentlemen.

The Congress is scheduled to return to business on September 9th, but maybe the Congress will be called back into session before then.

Why don't you guys go ahead and see what you can do to get a vote on this asap, either before Sept 9th or before the fireworks begin, whichever happens first?

You're the one that took only what benefited your argument from a poll and posted no links. This isn't about Obama or Boehner or Congress being out of session.

It's about a poll which shows the clear fact that a vast majority of Americans want the congress to debate and approve it before there's a strike.

That shoots down your claim that a majority of Americans want a red line, unless you include the rest of it which you didn't.

As I said before, Americans want Congressional approval, and if Obama goes it alone, he's on his own. If something goes wrong, he's the fall guy.

[mania]

You're the one that took only what benefited your argument from a poll and posted no links. This isn't about Obama or Boehner or Congress being out of session.

It's about a poll which shows the clear fact that a vast majority of Americans want the congress to debate and approve it before there's a strike.

That shoots down your claim that a majority of Americans want a red line, unless you include the rest of it which you didn't.

As I said before, Americans want Congressional approval, and if Obama goes it alone, he's on his own. If something goes wrong, he's the fall guy.

You have stated that very clearly yet,

It will undoubtedly fall on deaf ears.

When it comes to this subject or for that matter any that involves Obama

reason,logic & facts go right out the proverbial window.

Edited August 31, 2013 by mania

[Scott]

Please stay on-topic and refrain from comments about other posters.

[pastafarian]

[Publicus]

The president has not called the Congress back into session from its August recess, which he is constitutionally empowered to do.

The Republican John Boehner who is Speaker of the House has not called the House back from its recess to vote on the issue.

The Senate majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid and the Republican minority leader, Sen Mitch McConnell have not called the Senate back into session from its August recess to vote on this issue.

You need to take up the matter with the above named distinguished gentlemen.

The Congress is scheduled to return to business on September 9th, but maybe the Congress will be called back into session before then.

Why don't you guys go ahead and see what you can do to get a vote on this asap, either before Sept 9th or before the fireworks begin, whichever happens first?

You're the one that took only what benefited your argument from a poll and posted no links. This isn't about Obama or Boehner or Congress being out of session.

It's about a poll which shows the clear fact that a vast majority of Americans want the congress to debate and approve it before there's a strike.

That shoots down your claim that a majority of Americans want a red line, unless you include the rest of it which you didn't.

As I said before, Americans want Congressional approval, and if Obama goes it alone, he's on his own. If something goes wrong, he's the fall guy.

What are you talking about I posted no links?

The following is a copy of a post I made earlier today which links to the NBC survey.

You guys are the ones howling about the Congress not being recalled to vote on the issue. It's up to you to carry your argument. You can't carry the argument, however - much less present it - by trying to focus on me and on the information from the survey that I choose to present and argue.

I'm accurately presenting data from the survey. There's a lot of data in the survey, so I'm not presenting the whole of the survey. You see data you like more, then you can present the data without trying to disparage or deny my selection of data.

I don't care if the Congress votes or doesn't vote. It makes no difference to me either way. I just point out to you no one in authority to recall the Congress from its summer recess to vote has done so. Your beef is with the particular people in authority in this respect.

Get your heads screwed on straight for a change. You either accept the whole of the survey, to include each of its components, or you don't.

Either way, my post of earlier today is as follows, the one in which I link the survey (and stop wasting my time):

Posted Today, 05:49

During the past week Americans have had time to collect the news and information concerning the use of chemical weapons in Syria and Prez Obama's response in the making.

NBC News has a new scientific survey that asks specific questions about the naval use only of Tomahawk cruise missiles and whether Assad's use of chemical weapons against his population constitutes crossing a "red line."

Fifty percent of Americans agree with the specific course of punitive military action Prez Obama has presented and is pursuing against the Assad regime.

Fifty-eight percent agree that there needs to be a red line against the use of chemical weapons, and that a leader who crosses the red line should suffer military consequences by the United States. The 58% say Assad has In fact crossed the red line and deserves military punishment by the U.S. as Prez Obama is undertaking.

Quote

Now, more specifically, if U.S. military action in Syria were limited to air strikes using cruise missiles

launched from U.S. naval ships that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been

used to carry out chemical attacks would you support or oppose this U.S. military action in Syria?

Support ................................................................. 50

Oppose ................................................................. 44

Not sure .............................................................. 6

Quote

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

The use of chemical weapons by any country is a “red line,” that is an action that would require a significant

U.S. response, including the possibility of military action.

Agree .......................................................... 58

Disagree ..................................................... 35

Depends (VOL) ........................................ 3

Not sure .................................................... 4

http://msnbcmedia.ms..._Syria_Poll.pdf

Edited by Publicus, Today, 06:13 .

Edited August 31, 2013 by Publicus

[mania]

partisan politics aside

Whether Obama realizes it or not Boehner is throwing him the perfect
life line/ get out of jail dumb comment free card.

It is the one way Obama, albeit late, can still reverse his pride based
comment/redline threat made without thinking

Boehner's comment
"it is clear that further dialogue and consultation with Congress,
as well as communication with the American public, will be needed,"

should be leapt at by Obama as it could be a graceful exit not to mention the right thing to
do in a democratically elected government. It should actually have been his original redline
comment, meaning, He should have said, "if you cross this line I will go to Congress & request
a full response to your actions."

Now here is his chance to gracefully exit the comment yet he does not take it?
No leader of a superpower should make such a comment/decision on his own
regardless of claims that it will be a short & sweet operation.

He will spend millions/billions of his citizens $$$ & possibly put soldiers lives
on the line regardless of the short & sweet rhetoric.

Very foolish of him not to take this lifeline.
He has already botched his original threat.

Boehner's comment from this link

[oldgit]

What hasn't been mentioned is that the Assad forces against the rebels include Hezbollah. It has been reported that Syria transferred two stockpiles of chemical weapons to Hezbollah. Assad government forces might not have been responsible for the attack but I wouldn't be surprised if Hezbollah did it off their own back. Why should they care about Assad's destiny? They have their own agenda for destabilising the region.

[Baloo22]

Of course Assad did it. Jeez. It's cool if you are anti US and against US intervention for personal reasons, but pleas stop with the no evidence bs.

The really sad part about all of this crap is that it is purely political. If Bama said we are not getting involved, the Republicans along with a lot of two faced bastards that just hate Bama would be saying "Bama is weak and we need to bomb."

That is what makes me suck. This has nothing to do with right or wrong. It is just drawn along political lines even though the consequences are unbelievable suffering by many many innocent civilians and children.

I mean seriously. It is amazing how all of those that have been against Baama since day one are unanimously against intervention just because he is for it. Shameful.

You are very much mistaken with your accusations that those against intervention are against it because Obama is for it. Sen. John McCain was his opponent in the 2008 election and he is for intervention. There are people on both the left and right that are for intervention and there are people on both the left and right that are against intervention. You can take a look at this far left website and see that even the far left is split on intervention. This is not a left or right issue.

[hawker9000]

What hasn't been mentioned is that the Assad forces against the rebels include Hezbollah. It has been reported that Syria transferred two stockpiles of chemical weapons to Hezbollah. Assad government forces might not have been responsible for the attack but I wouldn't be surprised if Hezbollah did it off their own back. Why should they care about Assad's destiny? They have their own agenda for destabilising the region.

Hasn't Syria (& Assad) been Hezbollah's conduit for arms coming from Iran? Isn't the possibility of Assad's fall kind of a threat to that supply line?

[chuckd]

From the AP:

Not entirely accurate since apparently the French are still with the US...which reminds me of this memorable Jed Babbin quote:

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordian. You just leave a lot of useless noisy baggage behind."

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

Scant foreign support for US strikes on Syria

.

Associated Press LARA JAKES 4 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is poised to become the first U.S. leader in three decades to attack a foreign nation without mustering broad international support or acting in direct defense of Americans.

Not since 1983, when President Ronald Reagan ordered an invasion of the Caribbean island of Grenada, has the U.S. been so alone in pursing major lethal military action beyond a few attacks responding to strikes or threats against its citizens.

It's a policy turnabout for Obama, a Democrat who took office promising to limit U.S. military intervention and, as a candidate, said the president "does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

http://news.yahoo.com/scant-foreign-support-us-strikes-syria-180514678--politics.html

[F430murci]

Of course Assad did it. Jeez. It's cool if you are anti US and against US intervention for personal reasons, but pleas stop with the no evidence bs.

The really sad part about all of this crap is that it is purely political. If Bama said we are not getting involved, the Republicans along with a lot of two faced bastards that just hate Bama would be saying "Bama is weak and we need to bomb."

That is what makes me suck. This has nothing to do with right or wrong. It is just drawn along political lines even though the consequences are unbelievable suffering by many many innocent civilians and children.

I mean seriously. It is amazing how all of those that have been against Baama since day one are unanimously against intervention just because he is for it. Shameful.

You are very much mistaken with your accusations that those against intervention are against it because Obama is for it. Sen. John McCain was his opponent in the 2008 election and he is for intervention. There are people on both the left and right that are for intervention and there are people on both the left and right that are against intervention. You can take a look at this far left website and see that even the far left is split on intervention. This is not a left or right issue.

Yes. You are correct. There are outlier Republicans like Graham, McCain and Corker (not such a bad guy) that are in favor of a strike. The core of the party however . . . As well as all of the Bama haters on here. Just my opinion, but this thing seems driven more politics than anything else.

The far left . . . Haha, like the far left would ever be for anything but peace, love, and marijuanna. Oh yeah, save the whales and those poor little minks.

Edited August 31, 2013 by F430murci

[oldgit]

What hasn't been mentioned is that the Assad forces against the rebels include Hezbollah. It has been reported that Syria transferred two stockpiles of chemical weapons to Hezbollah. Assad government forces might not have been responsible for the attack but I wouldn't be surprised if Hezbollah did it off their own back. Why should they care about Assad's destiny? They have their own agenda for destabilising the region.

Hasn't Syria (& Assad) been Hezbollah's conduit for arms coming from Iran? Isn't the possibility of Assad's fall kind of a threat to that supply line?

Sure,but all is not as rosy as it may seem. By siding with Assad,the EU are considering designating the group a terrorist organisation especially after Hezbollah's alleged role in the killing of 5 Israelis in Bulgaria.Indeed,Bahrain has already done this. Assad's vicious bombardment of his own citizens have also led Hamas,a supporter of Hezbollah,to distant itself from the regime and head to Qatar.With Assad's gradual weakening of power,it might be in the Hezbollah's best interest to pull the rug from under his feet and,with it,his hated minority Alawhite power base.

[SinCityGr8One]

News Flash! A recent poll has been conducted among average Americans regarding the Syrian situation. The results are in: 29% said Syria is between France and Italy. 19% said Syria makes that cheese with holes in it. 17% said it was an island in the Pacific Ocean. 15% actually called it Syria Arabia. 10% said that the Syrian Army has those Red Kettles in front of stores at Christmas time.

6% said "Get the phuck outta my face dude!" 4% actually said it was inthe desert over there somewhere, you know. The findings show that Polls are just propoganda released by the powers that be to help guide the opinions of the sheeple.

Sent from my GT-S5360B.

[Publicus]

The planned shock military intervention in Syria using naval and air forces and Tomahawk cruise missiles can be expected to be a short, hard-hitting and decisive affair which will be over as quickly as it started.

Prez Obama wants and needs to make the point that the Assad regime must and will be punished by a swift, hard and short missile bombardment that, while not changing the outcome of the civil war, will do damage to the regime and be indelibly remembered by the regime.

A short and clean hard-hitting barrage and get out. As in most instances of U.S. military engagement, there should be a surge of support for the armed forces conducting the swift and effective barrage and for the commander in chief for another successful military undertaking.

Obama knows he cannot get bogged down in this. Hit 'em hard, swiftly, effectively, and get out cleanly. It took Bill Clinton a couple of months of action in Kosovo and Serbia but that operation went well from the start and finished with Molosovic in the Hague before the War Crimes Tribunal.

Obama doesn't need to capture or kill any one or two particular persons. Just hit' em hard and get out.

A short but strong military intervention in Syria may spell good for Barack Obama

Obama, who has long been wary of any involvement in Syria's civil war, and U.S. allies appeared on Tuesday to be carefully laying the groundwork for a coordinated military response.

As Obama's administration builds a case for a likely military action in Syria, several analysts said such a move probably would not have lingering negative consequences for the president at home - as long as the intervention was short-lived

"My prediction would be that public opinion would swing very quickly to support the military action in Syria," said Ipsos pollster Julia Clark.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/a-short-but-strong-military-intervention-in-syria-may-spell-good-for-barack-obama/1161216/

Edited August 31, 2013 by Publicus

[Jingthing]

...

The findings show that Polls are just propoganda released by the powers that be to help guide the opinions of the sheeple.

As someone who might want to travel to New Zealand someday, I humbly request an end to all this lambasting of the Kiwi national object of desire!

[chuckd]

The planned shock military intervention in Syria using naval and air forces and Tomahawk cruise missiles can be expected to be a short, hard-hitting and decisive affair which will be over as quickly as it started.

Prez Obama wants and needs to make the point that the Assad regime must and will be punished by a swift, hard and short missile bombardment that, while not changing the outcome of the civil war, will do damage to the regime and be indelibly remembered by the regime.

A short and clean hard-hitting barrage and get out. As in most instances of U.S. military engagement, there should be a surge of support for the armed forces conducting the swift and effective barrage and for the commander in chief for another successful military undertaking.

Obama knows he cannot get bogged down in this. Hit 'em hard, swiftly, effectively, and get out cleanly. It took Bill Clinton a couple of months of action in Kosovo and Serbia but that operation went well from the start and finished with Molosovic in the Hague before the War Crimes Tribunal.

Obama doesn't need to capture or kill any one or two particular persons. Just hit' em hard and get out.

A short but strong military intervention in Syria may spell good for Barack Obama

Obama, who has long been wary of any involvement in Syria's civil war, and U.S. allies appeared on Tuesday to be carefully laying the groundwork for a coordinated military response.

As Obama's administration builds a case for a likely military action in Syria, several analysts said such a move probably would not have lingering negative consequences for the president at home - as long as the intervention was short-lived

"My prediction would be that public opinion would swing very quickly to support the military action in Syria," said Ipsos pollster Julia Clark.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/a-short-but-strong-military-intervention-in-syria-may-spell-good-for-barack-obama/1161216/

From your link in the Indian Express:

_________________________________________________________

POLLS SHOW SINKING SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION

Polls show large majorities of Americans, weary of more than a decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, strongly oppose a U.S. military mission in Syria. A Reuters-Ipsos poll last week found about 60 percent of Americans are against U.S. intervention in Syria, while just 9 percent support it.

More Americans favor intervention if Syria has used chemical weapons, but even that support has dipped as the situation in Syria has deteriorated, according to the poll.

...and the complete quote from Ipsos pollster Julia Clark...

"My prediction would be that public opinion would swing very quickly to support the military action in Syria," said Ipsos pollster Julia Clark. "The danger for Obama is if it becomes more prolonged."

[giggles]

US surveillance is so total on a given area that theres no question about the facts ,they just have to keep quiet about their tactics of surveillance methods/

look at the recent exposures on tracking bin laden and electronic methods of tacking him down for instance

[jocko]

How is limited action going to help the Rebel's and thousands of refugees from this war to return to there home i watched all the news on the UK yesterday inc many interviews of the Syrians who are displaced, the doctors working in the make shift hospitals, the rebel leaders it would break your heart we have all seen the footage but the help they need and they want is a more than teaching Assad a lesson for using chemical weapons as bad as that is.

That is problem, lets assume the missiles do there job what happens then ? We will still be seeing the same footage on our TV .

[simple1]

John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina challenged Obama's plan Friday, issuing a statement that said the purpose of any U.S. military action in Syria "should not be to help the president save face." The goal, they said, "should be to shift the balance of power on the battlefield against Assad and his forces."

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/30/world/europe/syria-civil-war

An analysis by the Economist indicates that any strike will further assist the rebel forces, (who were previously on the back foot, but now recovering) whose most effective war fighting forces are Islamic extremists and the moderate fighting forces are increasingly being dominated by Islamic radicals.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2013/08/syrias-civil-war

Should the US & France launch a limited strike and to use Tony Blair's words "won't make a blind bit of difference" what then will be the options for US/NATO? Alternately if the Syrian oppositon come to power and is dominated by Islamic radicals what then happens, as I have not seen any policy statement that outlines a strategy to deal with this scenario.

[jocko]

I watched a interview yesterday from a nice hotel in Damascus local families enjoying there day of kids swimming in the pool shops open everything looking normal they where talking with two Syrian ladies sitting with there children all dressed up in western fashion .

They were happy with Assad would they want a radical life?

[Publicus]

The planned shock military intervention in Syria using naval and air forces and Tomahawk cruise missiles can be expected to be a short, hard-hitting and decisive affair which will be over as quickly as it started.

Prez Obama wants and needs to make the point that the Assad regime must and will be punished by a swift, hard and short missile bombardment that, while not changing the outcome of the civil war, will do damage to the regime and be indelibly remembered by the regime.

A short and clean hard-hitting barrage and get out. As in most instances of U.S. military engagement, there should be a surge of support for the armed forces conducting the swift and effective barrage and for the commander in chief for another successful military undertaking.

Obama knows he cannot get bogged down in this. Hit 'em hard, swiftly, effectively, and get out cleanly. It took Bill Clinton a couple of months of action in Kosovo and Serbia but that operation went well from the start and finished with Molosovic in the Hague before the War Crimes Tribunal.

Obama doesn't need to capture or kill any one or two particular persons. Just hit' em hard and get out.

A short but strong military intervention in Syria may spell good for Barack Obama

Obama, who has long been wary of any involvement in Syria's civil war, and U.S. allies appeared on Tuesday to be carefully laying the groundwork for a coordinated military response.

As Obama's administration builds a case for a likely military action in Syria, several analysts said such a move probably would not have lingering negative consequences for the president at home - as long as the intervention was short-lived

"My prediction would be that public opinion would swing very quickly to support the military action in Syria," said Ipsos pollster Julia Clark.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/a-short-but-strong-military-intervention-in-syria-may-spell-good-for-barack-obama/1161216/

From your link in the Indian Express:

_________________________________________________________

POLLS SHOW SINKING SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION

Polls show large majorities of Americans, weary of more than a decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, strongly oppose a U.S. military mission in Syria. A Reuters-Ipsos poll last week found about 60 percent of Americans are against U.S. intervention in Syria, while just 9 percent support it.

More Americans favor intervention if Syria has used chemical weapons, but even that support has dipped as the situation in Syria has deteriorated, according to the poll.

...and the complete quote from Ipsos pollster Julia Clark...

"My prediction would be that public opinion would swing very quickly to support the military action in Syria," said Ipsos pollster Julia Clark. "The danger for Obama is if it becomes more prolonged."

I've posted verbatim the two questions from the NBC scientific survey of the present, published after the above article was written, that show 50% support the missile attack approach while 44% oppose, and that 58% believe in drawing a red line over the use of chemical weapons to include a military response while 35% are opposed. That's precise, clear, up to date.

Prez Obama will make a missile bombardment short, hard-hitting, effective and get out quickly and cleanly. Judith Clark's admonition is a standard qualifier and a boilerplate language that a pollster uses to cover the pollster's arse just in case, so we can take that for what it's worth, which is very little.

And no one is disputing Judith Clark's statement that, "My prediction would be that public opinion would swing very quickly to support the military action in Syria," said Ipsos pollster Julia Clark (quote taken from the link).

I try to do constructive and gainful things during my time spent at TVF. I'm not focused on any one single poster. Nor do I consider that I'm especially clever.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Publicus

[Exsexyman]

What hasn't been mentioned is that the Assad forces against the rebels include Hezbollah. It has been reported that Syria transferred two stockpiles of chemical weapons to Hezbollah. Assad government forces might not have been responsible for the attack but I wouldn't be surprised if Hezbollah did it off their own back. Why should they care about Assad's destiny? They have their own agenda for destabilising the region.

Hasn't Syria (& Assad) been Hezbollah's conduit for arms coming from Iran? Isn't the possibility of Assad's fall kind of a threat to that supply line?

Sure,but all is not as rosy as it may seem. By siding with Assad,the EU are considering designating the group a terrorist organisation especially after Hezbollah's alleged role in the killing of 5 Israelis in Bulgaria.Indeed,Bahrain has already done this. Assad's vicious bombardment of his own citizens have also led Hamas,a supporter of Hezbollah,to distant itself from the regime and head to Qatar.With Assad's gradual weakening of power,it might be in the Hezbollah's best interest to pull the rug from under his feet and,with it,his hated minority Alawhite power base.

The EU are not 'siding with Assad', that is just silly. Very reminiscent of the G W Bush maxim,' If you are not with us you are against us', ie, if you don't support us launching an illegal war on the basis of made up intelligence, and a pack of lies, you must be a supporter of terrorism. Intellectual pygmyism then, and intellectual pygmyism now. As for your claim about Assad's weakening of power, he has got the Al Qaeda terrorist insurgents who are attempting to take over a secular country and introduce a radical Islamic regime with all that entails, on the run, they are losing. Terrorist insurgents who are backed and supported by the West, because they are doing our dirty work in pursuit of our geopolitical agenda. There are no principles, and no distinctions between good guys and bad guys here! Personally i am ashamed that leaders of countries that claim to be 'civilised' are happy to to take the side of barbarians who film themselves ripping open the bodies of soldiers, pulling out internal organs and eating them, slaughtering christians (In one case a whole community), burning down their churches etc, because it suits their agenda. You obviously have no problem with this, that is between you and your conscience.

[simple1]

What hasn't been mentioned is that the Assad forces against the rebels include Hezbollah. It has been reported that Syria transferred two stockpiles of chemical weapons to Hezbollah. Assad government forces might not have been responsible for the attack but I wouldn't be surprised if Hezbollah did it off their own back. Why should they care about Assad's destiny? They have their own agenda for destabilising the region.

Hasn't Syria (& Assad) been Hezbollah's conduit for arms coming from Iran? Isn't the possibility of Assad's fall kind of a threat to that supply line?

Sure,but all is not as rosy as it may seem. By siding with Assad,the EU are considering designating the group a terrorist organisation especially after Hezbollah's alleged role in the killing of 5 Israelis in Bulgaria.Indeed,Bahrain has already done this. Assad's vicious bombardment of his own citizens have also led Hamas,a supporter of Hezbollah,to distant itself from the regime and head to Qatar.With Assad's gradual weakening of power,it might be in the Hezbollah's best interest to pull the rug from under his feet and,with it,his hated minority Alawhite power base.

The EU are not 'siding with Assad', that is just silly. Very reminiscent of the G W Bush maxim,' If you are not with us you are against us', ie, if you don't support us launching an illegal war on the basis of made up intelligence, and a pack of lies, you must be a supporter of terrorism. Intellectual pygmyism then, and intellectual pygmyism now. As for your claim about Assad's weakening of power, he has got the Al Qaeda terrorist insurgents who are attempting to take over a secular country and introduce a radical Islamic regime with all that entails, on the run, they are losing. Terrorist insurgents who are backed and supported by the West, because they are doing our dirty work in pursuit of our geopolitical agenda. There are no principles, and no distinctions between good guys and bad guys here! Personally i am ashamed that leaders of countries that claim to be 'civilised' are happy to to take the side of barbarians who film themselves ripping open the bodies of soldiers, pulling out internal organs and eating them, slaughtering christians (In one case a whole community), burning down their churches etc, because it suits their agenda. You obviously have no problem with this, that is between you and your conscience.

The Shabiha Militia who support Assad are also guilty of systematic murder and rape of Sunni civilians with a number of reports that they have wiped out villages with absolutely no regard for women and children, this includes mutilation of children. The Shabiha were heavily involved with the Syrian Army in the violent suppression of the Arab Spring demonstrators in 2011

No distinctions between the people of evil on both sides of the civil war.

[oldgit]

What hasn't been mentioned is that the Assad forces against the rebels include Hezbollah. It has been reported that Syria transferred two stockpiles of chemical weapons to Hezbollah. Assad government forces might not have been responsible for the attack but I wouldn't be surprised if Hezbollah did it off their own back. Why should they care about Assad's destiny? They have their own agenda for destabilising the region.

Hasn't Syria (& Assad) been Hezbollah's conduit for arms coming from Iran? Isn't the possibility of Assad's fall kind of a threat to that supply line?

Sure,but all is not as rosy as it may seem. By siding with Assad,the EU are considering designating the group a terrorist organisation especially after Hezbollah's alleged role in the killing of 5 Israelis in Bulgaria.Indeed,Bahrain has already done this. Assad's vicious bombardment of his own citizens have also led Hamas,a supporter of Hezbollah,to distant itself from the regime and head to Qatar.With Assad's gradual weakening of power,it might be in the Hezbollah's best interest to pull the rug from under his feet and,with it,his hated minority Alawhite power base.

The EU are not 'siding with Assad', that is just silly. Very reminiscent of the G W Bush maxim,' If you are not with us you are against us', ie, if you don't support us launching an illegal war on the basis of made up intelligence, and a pack of lies, you must be a supporter of terrorism. Intellectual pygmyism then, and intellectual pygmyism now. As for your claim about Assad's weakening of power, he has got the Al Qaeda terrorist insurgents who are attempting to take over a secular country and introduce a radical Islamic regime with all that entails, on the run, they are losing. Terrorist insurgents who are backed and supported by the West, because they are doing our dirty work in pursuit of our geopolitical agenda. There are no principles, and no distinctions between good guys and bad guys here! Personally i am ashamed that leaders of countries that claim to be 'civilised' are happy to to take the side of barbarians who film themselves ripping open the bodies of soldiers, pulling out internal organs and eating them, slaughtering christians (In one case a whole community), burning down their churches etc, because it suits their agenda. You obviously have no problem with this, that is between you and your conscience.

Hold your horses.Read my post carefully and you will see that I said that "the EU are considering designating the group i.e Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation" as THEY are siding with Assad. Referring to my original point on who was responsible for the chemical attack,I am merely offering another scenario on who the perpetrators were if it wasn't the Assad regime.I agree,this is a callous,vicious war played out in a country and a region that is rotten to the core.

[Ulysses G.]

Prez Obama will make a missile bombardment short, hard-hitting, effective and get out quickly and cleanly.

Wasting a lot of money, creating a lot of ill will and acomplishing pretty much nothing of any consequence.