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.

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

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.msn.com/i//MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/13336_NBC_Syria_Poll.pdf

Edited August 30, 201312 yr by Publicus

Mania:

Yeah dude. Love your comments about that piece of garbage Assad would not use human shields in response to my post a couple of days ago. Every one is now reporting that Assad is using human shields.

Also love the Republicans now whining about costs last night. This is some selfish arse bullshit especially when they all backed Bush's crazy arse expendetures to raize a country at peace.

Edited August 30, 201312 yr by F430murci

I can't speak for the USA, but it seems that the people are weary of war, the economy cannot support another war, and the POTUS is attempting to show restraint despite the frantic pounding of the war drums from the GOP war core.

Actually, most Republicans are against intervention in Syria. It is Obama who is is pounding the war drums this time. He wants to save face for his red line remark, but very few Americans (or Brits) want to back him up on something that is not designed to do anything other than make a statement about him personally.

The present NBC scientific survey shows that 58% of Americans believe that a red line should exist against a country using chemical weapons, and that the United States should respond against a country that uses chemical weapons to include military options.

This is a matter of the views of the president and of the people. On this issue, the views join in agreement.

There's nothing personal in this.

Mania:

Yeah dude. Love your comments about that piece of garbage Assad would not use human shields in response to my post a couple of days ago. Every one is now reporting that Assad is using human shields.

Also love the Republicans now whining about costs last night. This is some selfish arse bullshit especially when they all backed Bush's crazy arse expendetures to raize a country at peace.

Your usual play a lawyer on TV like ways of twisting what anyone says.

If you want to claim someone made a "comment" then post/quote them so others may see

how you twisted it. Otherwise it is just more of your usual cheap theatrics

Carry on

Edited August 31, 201312 yr by mania

I can't speak for the USA, but it seems that the people are weary of war, the economy cannot support another war, and the POTUS is attempting to show restraint despite the frantic pounding of the war drums from the GOP war core.

Actually, most Republicans are against intervention in Syria. It is Obama who is is pounding the war drums this time. He wants to save face for his red line remark, but very few Americans (or Brits) want to back him up on something that is not designed to do anything other than make a statement about him personally.

The present NBC scientific survey shows that 58% of Americans believe that a red line should exist against a country using chemical weapons, and that the United States should respond against a country that uses chemical weapons to include military options.

This is a matter of the views of the president and of the people. On this issue, the views join in agreement.

There's nothing personal in this.

From another thread:

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.nbc...l-on-syria?lite

He is ignoring what the American people want.

Edited August 31, 201312 yr by Ulysses G.

I can't speak for the USA, but it seems that the people are weary of war, the economy cannot support another war, and the POTUS is attempting to show restraint despite the frantic pounding of the war drums from the GOP war core.

Actually, most Republicans are against intervention in Syria. It is Obama who is is pounding the war drums this time. He wants to save face for his red line remark, but very few Americans (or Brits) want to back him up on something that is not designed to do anything other than make a statement about him personally.

The present NBC scientific survey shows that 58% of Americans believe that a red line should exist against a country using chemical weapons, and that the United States should respond against a country that uses chemical weapons to include military options.

This is a matter of the views of the president and of the people. On this issue, the views join in agreement.

There's nothing personal in this.

From another thread:

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.nbc...l-on-syria?lite

He is ignoring what the American people want.

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.

It's true there are very few countries that are capable of conducting any kind of effective, from a distance, military action against the Assad regime for its use of chemical weapons against civilian men, women and children, to include the deliberate targeting of children in a school building the other day.

Such a coalition of the willing is really, in fact, a coalition of the few that are able, the few that are militarily capable.

The Arab countries should manage this situation on their own but are both incompetent and unable to do so. Any intervention in Syria by other Arab countries would necessarily involve large masses of troops and logistics which would result in a huge displacement of Syrian civilians to include more dead Syrian civilians.

The only option is to conduct precision missile strikes from a distance, at sea, conducted primarily by naval forces to include submarines firing Tomahawk cruise missiles.

The UK, one of the few countries that can do this, has removed itself from any responsibility or obligation in the situation and amidst the outrage.

It's good to see one of the very few other countries with the capability to conduct such naval and military operations, France, come forward positively and stridently in defense of civilian populations against chemical warfare.

France Supports US on Syria Action

http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/france-supports-us-on-syria-action/157681/

France is still ready to take action in Syria alongside the US, despite UK MPs blocking British involvement, President Francois Hollande has said.

He said a military strike within days could not be ruled out.

"But there are few countries which can have the capacity of enforcing any sanction through the appropriate measures," he said.

"France will be part of it. France is ready."

Edited August 31, 201312 yr by Publicus

Bush had 40 countries in his coalition of the willing. Obama has - maybe - France and he refuses to bring this to Congress for a vote as they did in the UK. What a complete mess.

Bush had 40 countries in his coalition of the willing. Obama has - maybe - France and he refuses to bring this to Congress for a vote as they did in the UK. What a complete mess.

How many of those 40 actually risked troops in combat?

Bush had 40 countries in his coalition of the willing. Obama has - maybe - France and he refuses to bring this to Congress for a vote as they did in the UK. What a complete mess.

How many democracies have naval and air forces with cruise missiles?

How many democracies can send naval and air forces to the eastern Mediterranean to conduct distant offshore offensive operations firing cruise missiles at specific land targets with precision?

What, Thailand?!

How many democracies have undersea naval forces such as submarines that can fire cruise missiles at distant targets with precision (within 15 feet of the target at the worst).

What, Italy?!

Are there 40 countries that have this naval and air force precision missile capability and prowess? Are there 40 countries that even have submarines?

Do we want 40 countries crammed into the eastern Mediterranean and spilling over into the Persian Gulf and/or the Red Sea trying to fire precision missiles at specific targets in Syria? Are there that many targets in the whole of Syria, never mind only those that have to do with chemical warfare?

Thinking all this through is a part of the process.

There are very few democratic governments that have the capacity and capability to conduct these very operations. One of them, the UK, is unwilling.

It's a good thing the French can move right in to pick up the ball, and that they not only are willing to do that, they in fact are picking up the ball and running with it.

Mania:

Yeah dude. Love your comments about that piece of garbage Assad would not use human shields in response to my post a couple of days ago. Every one is now reporting that Assad is using human shields.

Also love the Republicans now whining about costs last night. This is some selfish arse bullshit especially when they all backed Bush's crazy arse expendetures to raize a country at peace.

Your usual play a lawyer on TV like ways of twisting what anyone says.

If you want to claim someone made a "comment" then post/quote them so others may see

how you twisted it. Otherwise it is just more of your usual cheap theatrics

Carry on

Syrian just crossing into Turkey wanting air strikes.

---------

Hussein Mahmeddin supports the idea of a US-led air strike against the Assad government. "I've lost three of my cousins in this war. They were all younger than me," he says. "I want this air strike."

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23906654

I heard reports Internet down in parts of Syria.

Does not appear UN report is meant to do anything but tell whether there was a chemical attack. They are not there to determine who was responsible . . . Then why the heck are politicians in UK saying wait for UN report??????

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

DAMASCUS, Syria The U.N. weapons inspectors on the ground in Syria investigating last week's purported chemical weapons attack moved up their departure time Friday, CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reports.

. . .

According to the team's U.N. mandate, the analysis will establish if a chemical attack took place, but not who was responsible for the attack that the White House said Friday killed 1,429 civilians, which is four times greater than previous estimates.

The White House also said 426 of the victims were children

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?pageType=world&url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57600839/amid-syria-strike-signals-united-nations-inspectors-move-up-exit/&catid=57600839

Mania:

Yeah dude. Love your comments about that piece of garbage Assad would not use human shields in response to my post a couple of days ago. Every one is now reporting that Assad is using human shields.

Also love the Republicans now whining about costs last night. This is some selfish arse bullshit especially when they all backed Bush's crazy arse expendetures to raize a country at peace.

I presume this post refers to the invasion of Iraq, which could NOT have happened had the Democratic Party in the Senate not voted to support the action.

The Republicans did not have the necessary votes, yet Senators Clinton, Kerry, Biden et al voted to proceed. Obama did not vote since the Illinois Senate had no voice in the issue.

You need to get your facts straight.

Mania:

Yeah dude. Love your comments about that piece of garbage Assad would not use human shields in response to my post a couple of days ago. Every one is now reporting that Assad is using human shields.

Also love the Republicans now whining about costs last night. This is some selfish arse bullshit especially when they all backed Bush's crazy arse expendetures to raize a country at peace.

I presume this post refers to the invasion of Iraq, which could NOT have happened had the Democratic Party in the Senate not voted to support the action.

The Republicans did not have the necessary votes, yet Senators Clinton, Kerry, Biden et al voted to proceed. Obama did not vote since the Illinois Senate had no voice in the issue.

You need to get your facts straight.

Huh??? Never said dems didn't. Dude, learn to read what is written without conjecture.

France Supports US on Syria Action

http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/france-supports-us-on-syria-action/157681/

France is still ready to take action in Syria alongside the US, despite UK MPs blocking British involvement, President Francois Hollande has said.

He said a military strike within days could not be ruled out.

"But there are few countries which can have the capacity of enforcing any sanction through the appropriate measures," he said.

"France will be part of it. France is ready."

France. Interesting. Syria was a former French colony. Many Syrians relocated to France during decolonization (1958?).

'No warm feelings WRT what's about to happen (or why it's actually happening), but I'm not sure whether doing something about Assad, or NOT doing something, is really the worse risk here...

People who keep yapping about the CCP-PRC selling U.S. Treasuries don't know beans of what they're referring to.

The RMB would appreciate so fast that Beijing would need to use the balance of its foreign exchange reserves to bail out its crashing economy and financial system. That's because exports would die, and the rapidly appreciating currency would kill off almost all economic and financial activity. Selling off U.S. Treasuries would wreck the CCP's economy and financial system and Beijing knows it as well as Washington and everyone else know it.

There are however always some people who don't get the word.

Edited August 31, 201312 yr by Publicus

People who keep yapping about the CCP-PRC selling U.S. Treasuries don't know beans of what they're referring to.

The RMB would appreciate so fast that Beijing would need to use the balance of its foreign exchange reserves to bail out its crashing economy and financial system. That's because exports would die, and the rapidly appreciating currency would kill off almost all economic and financial activity. Selling off U.S. Treasuries would wreck the CCP's economy and financial system and Beijing knows it as well as Washington and everyone else know it.

There are however always some people who don't get the word.

You seem quite impressed with what you *think* you know about it.

Yes China selling 1 Trillion of the US debt they hold would not sink the US but it would not

do as you say either

Reason being US has 16 Trillion in debt China holds 1 Trillion

How anyone claims a collapse out of that sale for either party I do not know.

China sells it someone buys it so where does your collapse or radical appreciation of currency come from?

You make it sound like they sell it to a galaxy far far away

So as much as you hope for the wrecking of China's economy it would not happen.

China is not stupid.

They want their holdings yes even these UST's to appreciate like any other investor

The difference between them & the US is they hold, not owe, or need to sell

Of course they do not hope nor contribute to its demise since it is a store of wealth for them if possible.

But if eventually they see it is a one way downhill investment they like any other investor they may choose to sell

some of it or all of it. Although I doubt there are any buyers as big as they are that can absorb 1 trillion.

But your way off topic here anyway

Edited August 31, 201312 yr by mania

US missiles won't target civilian areas. Most likely, targets will be Syrian military positions and/or weapons manufacturing. Maybe a couple strikes on the ports where Russian arms come in. Ok, maybe a couple added missiles might be sent to Assad's private digs, just to add a personal touch. Maybe put one right on his swimming pool.

People who keep yapping about the CCP-PRC selling U.S. Treasuries don't know beans of what they're referring to.

The RMB would appreciate so fast that Beijing would need to use the balance of its foreign exchange reserves to bail out its crashing economy and financial system. That's because exports would die, and the rapidly appreciating currency would kill off almost all economic and financial activity. Selling off U.S. Treasuries would wreck the CCP's economy and financial system and Beijing knows it as well as Washington and everyone else know it.

There are however always some people who don't get the word.

The only problem with your argument is that the RMB is pegged to the USD for valuation. So if the RMB rises, it takes the USD with it, even if they were able to discount the Treasuries on the sale.

US missiles won't target civilian areas. Most likely, targets will be Syrian military positions and/or weapons manufacturing. Maybe a couple strikes on the ports where Russian arms come in. Ok, maybe a couple added missiles might be sent to Assad's private digs, just to add a personal touch. Maybe put one right on his swimming pool.

How sweet, just like drones don't kill wedding guests and manned Apache helicopters do not kill unarmed Reuters journalists................

Edited August 31, 201312 yr by philw

This entire affair has now become an international joke with Mr Obama being the straight man. He has backed himself into a corner by once again by acting unilaterally and leaking it to the media long before formal approval was obtained by respective governments. Mr Obama can still invoke the War Powers Act and go in on his own, but without the support of the US populace, US Congress, UN Security Council and the UK. There is also the question of whether the US itself is in imminent danger of attack to meet the criteria of invoking the War Powers Act.

This proposed action has been condemned across the planet and even by a former US President. It is now a matter of ego whether he proceeds. Why risk touching off a far wider conflict based on his principles?

John Kerry's speech yesterday made a very compelling case that the US has accurate intel as to what actually took place, although we have heard that story before.

Immediately after Kerry's speech, Obama was videoed in a separate meeting where he seemed to be walking his position back.

The buzz in the media today is that attacks will in fact take place in the next few days.

No matter what actually happens, Mr Obama looks like a dangerous, inept fool and has further damaged the image of the US in the ME.

To quote the Russian Deputy Prime Minister: "

Western Foreign Policy 'Like a Monkey With a Hand Grenade'"

Better Safe Than Syria

If we keep our distance, you wont have to stomach dead U.S. soldiers. But can you stomach all the dead Syrians?

http://mobile.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/08/syria_air_war_what_we_can_learn_from_kosovo_libya_and_the_persian_gulf_war.html?original_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

Various views from Syrians.

--------

In Amman, Jordan, many Syrians hope the British parliament will support a government resolution paving the way for a military strike against Syria.

http://www.euronews.com/2013/08/29/syrians-living-in-jordan-react-to-the-possibility-of-a-military-strike-against-/

Turkey backing US and asking for strong US response.

All academic now. Obama just spoke and is now asking for, and apparently, going to await Congressional approval. Quite a stunning announcement. Assad supporters must be dancing in the streets - definitely a propaganda victory for them. <sigh> Congress due back SEP 9 ('course they COULD be called back early...).

The latest Reuters polls show that only 20% of the Americans support aggression against Syria, 53% of the people are AGAINST it.

The latest Reuters polls show that only 20% of the Americans support aggression against Syria, 53% of the people are AGAINST it.

Yes, and it also says a whole lot about Russians fot Russia supporting a war criminal commiting genocide. If Russia for once would step up and do the right thing, it would end a lot of suffering for innocent women and children. Alas, Russia and Putin care little about suffering caused to it own people so why should they care about poor little Strian children getting toasted by napalm.

The latest Reuters polls show that only 20% of the Americans support aggression against Syria, 53% of the people are AGAINST it.

So what? Where's your link anyway? It's just a poll. Leaders make decisions based on what's right for their country, not polls.

BTW, right now I wish my old hero JOHN KERRY was president, not Obama. Obama seems to have lost his mojo. This isn't good for the world. I wish it wasn't true, but he's too bloody WEAK.

Edited August 31, 201312 yr by Jingthing