The latest here: I am following this by the minute:

Russia is rejecting the inspectors reports.

http://www.dw.de/russias-putin-rejects-syria-chemical-weapons-allegations-as-nonsense/a-17057747

Syria is not Vietnam.

Syria is not Iraq.

Syria is Syria.

Syria is just another excuse (Gulf of Tonkin).

Syria is Iraq.

Syria is the money mule.

Obama obviously didn't want anything like this. It's so easy to see all U.S. presidents as alike, but that's not the case.

The latest here: I am following this by the minute:

Russia is rejecting the inspectors reports.

http://www.dw.de/russias-putin-rejects-syria-chemical-weapons-allegations-as-nonsense/a-17057747

Of course they are. That isn't news. That is 100 percent expected. They are locked in to their position regarding Assad. Doesn't matter what he did or didn't do.

The latest here: I am following this by the minute:

Russia is rejecting the inspectors reports.

http://www.dw.de/russias-putin-rejects-syria-chemical-weapons-allegations-as-nonsense/a-17057747

Of course. Goes without saying. They would reject Assad himself saying he did it. Russian will back their position to the bitter end regardless of evidence or reality.

Why, because Putin can do or say anything he wants and no one in Russia can do jack <deleted> about it. Putin will also NEVER ever admit he is wrong on anything and he has the untenable position of being in the corner of a war criminal committing mass genocide.

Edited August 31, 201312 yr by F430murci

Obama obviously didn't want anything like this. It's so easy to see all U.S. presidents as alike, but that's not the case.

So what's he doing in Syria's backyard? Obama is just a puppet, like the others.

The latest here: I am following this by the minute:

Russia is rejecting the inspectors reports.

http://www.dw.de/russias-putin-rejects-syria-chemical-weapons-allegations-as-nonsense/a-17057747

Of course. Goes without saying. They would reject Assad himself saying he did it. Russian will back their position to the bitter end regardless of evidence or reality.

Why, because Putin can do or say anything he wants and no one in Russia can do jack <deleted> about it. Putin will also NEVER ever admit he is wrong on something like this.

Agreed.

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed. It is generally accepted, but not written into law, that quoting the first two or three sentences of an article and giving a link to the source is considered “fair use” and not a violation of copyright.

Obama obviously didn't want anything like this. It's so easy to see all U.S. presidents as alike, but that's not the case.

So what's he doing in Syria's backyard? Obama is just a puppet, like the others.

Fine. Puppets huh? I won't even ask. I reckon if a bigger war breaks out, we'll be on different sides anyway.

There is no international body that can tell the US or any other country what to do.

Assuming you are speaking from a moral rather than pragmatic standpoint, then is there an international body that can tell the sovereign country of Syria "what to do"?

Fine. Puppets huh? I won't even ask. I reckon if a bigger war breaks out, we'll be on different sides anyway.

Wrong, you think positive and try to support your commitment to your country and your opinion.

Therefore we are allies. Forever.

Edited August 31, 201312 yr by Dancealot

With all due respect, I'm really tired of hearing about "international laws." There is no international body that can tell the US or any other country what to do. Do you really think that the US or any other Western country would release its sovereignty to some higher international power?

Goes without saying none forfeit their sovereignty but at the same time if that is the case

then they should abolish the United Nations Charter & the BS Security Council

if none of it applies or benefits the world with checks & balances

The latest here: I am following this by the minute:

Russia is rejecting the inspectors reports.

http://www.dw.de/russias-putin-rejects-syria-chemical-weapons-allegations-as-nonsense/a-17057747

As I read it, the article states that Putin rejects the US allegations, not the inspectors report.

The latest here: I am following this by the minute:

Russia is rejecting the inspectors reports.

http://www.dw.de/russias-putin-rejects-syria-chemical-weapons-allegations-as-nonsense/a-17057747

As I read it, the article states that Putin rejects the US allegations, not the inspectors report.

Correct. Very diplomatic.

The case for punitive action against Assad. Basically, doing nothing is worse.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/08/a_military_strike_in_syria_doesn_t_have_to_save_the_people_it_just_has_to.html

So why do it? Because if we don’t, things can get much worse. “We cannot see a breach of the nonproliferation norm,” Obama argued. We “have to make sure that when countries break international norms on weapons like chemical weapons that could threaten us, that they are held accountable.” This afternoon, Kerry elaborated:

“A lot of other countries whose policy has challenged these international norms are watching. … They are watching to see if Syria can get away with it, because then maybe they too can put the world at greater risk. … [if] Assad can gas thousands of his own people with impunity … there will be no end to the test of our resolve and the dangers that will flow from those others who believe that they can do as they will. … [iran] will now feel emboldened, in the absence of action, to obtain nuclear weapons. It is about Hezbollah and North Korea and every other terrorist group or dictator that might ever again contemplate the use of weapons of mass destruction. Will they remember that the Assad regime was stopped from those weapons’ current or future use? Or will they remember that the world stood aside and created impunity?”

I wouldn't expect pro-Putin, Iran apologists, etc. people to agree. Different sides, natch.

Edited August 31, 201312 yr by Jingthing

NeverSure, c'mon your own president Mr Obama is saying:

On Friday, Obama said such attacks threaten U.S. national security interests by violating international norms against the use of chemical weapons. He said he had not yet made a final decision about what course of action to take in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons, but said the world "has an obligation" to maintain the norm against the use of such weapons.

norms = laws

“AMATEUR HOUR” – Krauthammer: Obama boxed himself in and now he’s looking for a way out of attacking Syria

Charles Krauthammer said that it was astonishing the lack of urgency he displayed, suggesting he could carry out this attack in the next week or the next month. “This is amateur hour,”

http://therightscoop.com/amateur-hour-krauthammer-obama-boxed-himself-in-and-now-hes-looking-for-a-way-out-of-attacking-syria/

Charles Krauthammer always hits the nail right on the head.

Another Fox talking head, who obviously doesn't know that the simply the threat of a few tomahawks will probably have the desired effect.

Do you think Assad will use chemicals again while this is hanging over him?

Off topic posts and replies have been removed. This is not about Haiti or Liberia.

I merely wonder how many more civilians will be killed by those planned air strikes?

Off-topic and inflammatory posts and replies have been removed. Stay on topic.

Here is a nice article,"Erdogan wants Syria regime change, not limited strikes" on the thoughts of Turkey's President Erdogan on the Syria conflict. Erdogan seems to be disappointed that only a "limited strike" is planned. He says “A limited operation cannot be satisfactory for us,”. I wonder if he is going to be upset enough to use Turkish military forces to effect this regime change that he wants?

There appears to be enough credible reporting backed with journalistic evidence indicating the gas attack is nothing but a false flag event.

Charles Krauthammer always hits the nail right on the head.

Agreed!

There appears to be enough credible reporting backed with journalistic evidence indicating the gas attack is nothing but a false flag event.

I haven't seen any. Where have you seen it?

There appears to be enough credible reporting backed with journalistic evidence indicating the gas attack is nothing but a false flag event.

I haven't seen any. Where have you seen it?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/16419-doubts-grow-about-perpetrators-behind-chemical-attack-in-syria

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36028.htm

http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/experts-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-suspicious.html

http://www.storyleak.com/ron-paul-syria-chemical-attack-a-flase-flag[/quote

The 1st link I opened said, "Rand Paul........". There went the credible part

As soon as I see "false flag" or "infowars", I know it is probably BS.

Edited September 1, 201312 yr by Ulysses G.

There appears to be enough credible reporting backed with journalistic evidence indicating the gas attack is nothing but a false flag event.

I haven't seen any. Where have you seen it?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/16419-doubts-grow-about-perpetrators-behind-chemical-attack-in-syria

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36028.htm

http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/experts-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-suspicious.html

http://www.storyleak.com/ron-paul-syria-chemical-attack-a-flase-flag[/quote

Haha, where do you find these sites? Bookmarked?

Here is one for your collection.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_MA6j4IhYZs&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D_MA6j4IhYZs

But this one really gets to the nut of the problem.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4HN4dxrMQZ4&feature=related

Edited September 1, 201312 yr by F430murci

NeverSure, c'mon your own president Mr Obama is saying:

On Friday, Obama said such attacks threaten U.S. national security interests by violating international norms against the use of chemical weapons. He said he had not yet made a final decision about what course of action to take in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons, but said the world "has an obligation" to maintain the norm against the use of such weapons.

norms = laws

Norms = normal practice.

Laws have teeth.

You're trying too hard.