Damascus preparing for Western military strike: people flee country, military commands relocated

[F430murci]

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.

This all makes US look impotent and Bama weak. US cannot act or do what pres think may be right thing due to political infighting.

These little underpaid, underachieving jackasses called congressmen need to end their little paid vacations, fly to Washington (which they don't even pay for) and do what they say needs to be done and have their little public debate.

I am okay with the outcome either way, but for Cruz et al to whine about providing input in such an important issue, but then wait until their little federally paid vacation is over is pathetic, embarrassing and shows a serious lack in judgment and priorities.

[rubin]

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.

Here is your link http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/31/un-experts-pull-out-syria-as-obama-edges-toward-limited-strike/

[rubin]

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.

And the whole story shows a lot about a small part (20%) of American people supporting Syrian 'opposition' bandits from Al Quaeda, Chechnya and Kosovo massacring its own people and slitting throats of Christian priests. These part of people are constantly being brainwashed or just don't know much what the suffering, loss and war is.

[F430murci]

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.

And the whole story shows a lot about a small part (20%) of American people supporting Syrian 'opposition' bandits from Al Quaeda, Chechnya and Kosovo massacring its own people and slitting throats of Christian priests. These part of people are constantly being brainwashed or just don't know much what the suffering, loss and war is.

Haha, sounds like a Russian response to me!

[hawker9000]

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.

This all makes US look impotent and Bama weak. US cannot act or do what pres think may be right thing due to political infighting.

These little underpaid, underachieving jackasses called congressmen need to end their little paid vacations, fly to Washington (which they don't even pay for) and do what they say needs to be done and have their little public debate.

I am okay with the outcome either way, but for Cruz et al to whine about providing input in such an important issue, but then wait until their little federally paid vacation is over is pathetic, embarrassing and shows a serious lack in judgment and priorities.

Not a matter of "infighting". Obama does not have to have congressional approval for the missile strike. He could easily order the strike without it; there'd be opposition, ranting & raving, threats of this & that, even division within his own party, but it's not unprecedented and he could certainly do it. He knows how impotent he personally looks abroad, and now is finally beginning to understand the possible consequences for the country of this strike if he goes ahead with it. He knows he won't be able to escape accountability this time around, and is flailing for an exit. Congress may well give hm his "exit" by refusing to provide the attack approval, affording Obama the chance to "blame" Congress for the debacle, but I don't think his "red line" will soon be forgotten by the US public, by either side in Syria, or by the rest of the world. Such a complete lack of credibility is an extremely dangerous position for the US and its allies to be in. Oh how Assad & his buddies must be celebrating tonight! Between the British vote in Parliament, and now this, he could scarcely have asked for a better outcome.

[F430murci]

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.

This all makes US look impotent and Bama weak. US cannot act or do what pres think may be right thing due to political infighting.

These little underpaid, underachieving jackasses called congressmen need to end their little paid vacations, fly to Washington (which they don't even pay for) and do what they say needs to be done and have their little public debate.

I am okay with the outcome either way, but for Cruz et al to whine about providing input in such an important issue, but then wait until their little federally paid vacation is over is pathetic, embarrassing and shows a serious lack in judgment and priorities.

Not a matter of "infighting". Obama does not have to have congressional approval for the missile strike. He could easily order the strike without it; there'd be opposition, ranting & raving, threats of this & that, even division within his own party, but it's not unprecedented and he could certainly do it. He knows how impotent he personally looks abroad, and now is finally beginning to understand the possible consequences for the country of this strike if he goes ahead with it. He knows he won't be able to escape accountability this time around, and is flailing for an exit. Congress may well give hm his "exit" by refusing to provide the attack approval, affording Obama the chance to "blame" Congress for the debacle, but I don't think his "red line" will soon be forgotten by the US public, by either side in Syria, or by the rest of the world. Such a complete lack of credibility is an extremely dangerous position for the US and its allies to be in. Oh how Assad & his buddies must be celebrating tonight! Between the British vote in Parliament, and now this, he could scarcely have asked for a better outcome.

Yes! Looks really bad for US. I would feel totally embolden if I was Assad, Iran, Russia, China NK or anyone that wants to stand up to the US. This thing has been handled wring from the start and I blame a weak arse president that is more focused on a transfer if wealth than real issues plaguing the world.

[F430murci]

Haha, somebody hacked YouTube. My 2 year old is pissed! All these sites suck now if you ask me . . .

[hawker9000]

There's a naval facility at Tartus, Syria. It was a Soviet-era Russian naval base. Russia very much still using it though not sure if it's still actually a "Russian" facility or a Syrian one just being used by the Russians. Whichever, I'm sure it's strictly off-limits to missile strikes, and now pretty much a sanctuary for Assad's high-value military assets (incl launchers) and anything else he wants to protect. And now he's got another week to move stuff there...

[Ulysses G.]

There's a naval facility at Tartus, Syria. It was a Soviet-era Russian naval base. Russia very much still using it though not sure if it's still actually a "Russian" facility or a Syrian one just being used by the Russians. Whichever, I'm sure it's strictly off-limits to missile strikes, and now pretty much a sanctuary for Assad's high-value military assets (incl launchers) and anything else he wants to protect. And now he's got another week to move stuff there...

Never mind. Obama had no intention of doing anything decisive anyway and now he might get out of it completely and blame congress as usual.

[jpinx]

Yes! Looks really bad for US. I would feel totally embolden if I was Assad, Iran, Russia, China NK or anyone that wants to stand up to the US. This thing has been handled wring from the start and I blame a weak arse president that is more focused on a transfer if wealth than real issues plaguing the world.

One thing is for sure -- France and USA have got egg of their faces entirely by their own mis-handling of the situation. UK at least managed to salvage something of democracy. Putin is right to be rubbing his hands, but he won't do anything particularly bad, because he is more aware than most leaders about the dangers of the now splintered rebels, who are also heavily infiltrated by the extreme muslim factions.

At the 11th hour Obama has decided to go for a congressional vote -- to be fair he didn't have much choice after Kerry and Biden shot their mouths off pre-emptively. Hopefully the whole circus will slow down over Labour weekend and the meeting of the UN will come before the vote. If the UN says no and congress says yes the rest f the world will be laughing at the USA for a long time to come - credibilty gone !!

[pastafarian]

[Ulysses G.]

If the UN says no and congress says yes the rest f the world will be laughing at the USA for a long time to come - credibilty gone !!

If the UN says no and congress says no, the world will still be laughing at Obama for a long time. His credibility is in shreds. The only way out of this for him is a major desisive strike that really accomplishes something about stopping Assad (and/or the rebels) from using chemical weapons. Given Obama's very WEAK track record, that is very unlikely to happen.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[jpinx]

Nice resumée of Obama's situation -- clever man played a very weak hand well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23918088

[Mosha]

BBC - Turkey is keen on a strike by America and "other" allies. (But not by Turkey?)

[mania]

Congress due back SEP 9 ('course they COULD be called back early...).

Call back early?

Never happen because if there is one thing Obama supports it is vacations

Edited September 1, 2013 by mania

[SinCityGr8One]

Does any one really think Putin would want a regime change in Damascus? Syria is near Russia's underbelly. Asaad is keeping Muslim Extremists in check. Good for Putin and Russia due to the large amount of restive groups in Russia's underbelly. Putin will continue to support Asaad because it is good for Russia's security. Do you continue to dance with the Devil you know? Or begin to dance with the Devil you don't know? Putin is smart. Real smart!

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

[Gsxrnz]

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

Did they bother to ask the same survey respondents if they actually knew where Syria was, and a few other pertinent questions regarding the country, its political situation and the history surrounding the current conflict?

Now that would have made for some interesting replies and I suggest may render the results of the poll as somewhat meaningless. Surely, isn't Syria somewhere near Australia, right next door to France?

[Mosha]

Who is fighting in Syrian opposition?

The same type of people who were dancing in the streets on 9/11 several years ago.

[jpinx]

What a farcical survey -- scientific it certainly wasn't

Shame they ask if the USA should do something -- I suppose Joe America doesn't know about the UN ... ?

The media in general are getting great ratings by publishing this kind of drivel. Don't forget that no strike is no news, and the media would starve.......

[boomerangutang]

All this Obama bashing. I don't see it that way. There are two basic things going on:

A::: As leader of the world's top military power, he and others have vowed to forbid the use of chemical weapons, and will come down like a ton of bricks on any force that uses them.

B::: The perpetrator of the recent chemical attack in Syria, killing over 1,000, is not clear. It appears to be Assad people, but it's hard to tell for sure.

There's a lot more that could be said, but I still stand behind Obama re; the tough decision: to strike or not to strike. He's damned if he doesn't call a strike (allowing chemical attacks on civilians to go unpunished), and damned if he does.

Some decisions aren't as quick and easy as deciding whether to get Chang or Singha, while balancing 250 lbs of flab on a barstool.

Edited September 1, 2013 by boomerangutang

[jpinx]

All this Obama bashing. I don't see it that way. There are two basic things going on:

A::: As leader of the world's top military power, he and others have vowed to forbid the use of chemical weapons, and will come down like a ton of bricks on any force that uses them.

..................

On what authority does USA base it's right to "punish" a nation state in this way? Syria did not sign the treaty banning chemical weapons.

Russia signed the treaty and have the ability to punish Syria much more than USA; but Putin knows Syria are not bound by that treaty.

[Mosha]

Some hypocrisy going on. CIA files prove America told Iraq where the Iranian troops were. Fully aware that Iraq would use chemical weapons in an attack.

[Ulysses G.]

All this Obama bashing. I don't see it that way. There are two basic things going on:

A::: As leader of the world's top military power, he and others have vowed to forbid the use of chemical weapons, and will come down like a ton of bricks on any force that uses them.

I doubt if Obama cares which side actually used the chemical weapons. He just wants to send a message that he is not to be trifled with, but the whole thing has backfired on him. He was NOT planning on coming down on anyone like a ton of bricks. From all the plans that his administration leaked in advance, it was obvious that it was going to only be a cosmetic strike that would accomplish little, other than making him look macho.

IMO, the only way out of this is for him is to ignore Congress, if they vote no on striking Syria (which there is a very good chance that they will do), and attack Assad in a very decisive way - not a limited strike (i.e. a pinprick) - that degrades Assad's capabilities. I would be very surprised if Obama goes after Assad in a serious way, but, if he did, and things went well, he could get back some credibility.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

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

Did they bother to ask the same survey respondents if they actually knew where Syria was, and a few other pertinent questions regarding the country, its political situation and the history surrounding the current conflict?

Now that would have made for some interesting replies and I suggest may render the results of the poll as somewhat meaningless. Surely, isn't Syria somewhere near Australia, right next door to France?

Assinine [sic].

[Publicus]

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.

This all makes US look impotent and Bama weak. US cannot act or do what pres think may be right thing due to political infighting.

These little underpaid, underachieving jackasses called congressmen need to end their little paid vacations, fly to Washington (which they don't even pay for) and do what they say needs to be done and have their little public debate.

I am okay with the outcome either way, but for Cruz et al to whine about providing input in such an important issue, but then wait until their little federally paid vacation is over is pathetic, embarrassing and shows a serious lack in judgment and priorities.

Not a matter of "infighting". Obama does not have to have congressional approval for the missile strike. He could easily order the strike without it; there'd be opposition, ranting & raving, threats of this & that, even division within his own party, but it's not unprecedented and he could certainly do it. He knows how impotent he personally looks abroad, and now is finally beginning to understand the possible consequences for the country of this strike if he goes ahead with it. He knows he won't be able to escape accountability this time around, and is flailing for an exit. Congress may well give hm his "exit" by refusing to provide the attack approval, affording Obama the chance to "blame" Congress for the debacle, but I don't think his "red line" will soon be forgotten by the US public, by either side in Syria, or by the rest of the world. Such a complete lack of credibility is an extremely dangerous position for the US and its allies to be in. Oh how Assad & his buddies must be celebrating tonight! Between the British vote in Parliament, and now this, he could scarcely have asked for a better outcome.

This is all wild speculation, the long train of possible horrors.

It's imaginings about what could happen, not what presently is.

[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.

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.

The Republicans have all the votes they need right here from 80% of posters.

More than enough.

[Publicus]

This is an examination and analysis of several polls taken throughout this year about possible U.S. military action against Assad and his forces in Syria.

It shows the U.S. public does not want to get militarily involved, as in Iraq or Afghanistan.

However, majorities in the polls support the specific course of action Prez Obama is proposing, i.e., limited missile strikes from a distance that would not directly involve U.S. military personnel in any on the ground fighting in the conflict, the civil war. Public support of that very specific, narrow and limited course of action has remained a constant in several polls over most of this year.

So it's easy to write a headline that says 300% of Americans oppose military involvement in Syria.

However, when the specific course of action is presented to the U.S. public, the course the president currently pursuing, the majority of Americans consistently support the focused and limited action.

Polls: Americans Don't Want to Attack Syria, but Could Support Limited Action That Did Not Risk American Lives

But poll respondents this year said that a chemical attack would justify U.S. military action. In May, a CNN poll found that if the U.S. presented evidence "that convinced you that the Syrian government has chemical weapons and has used them to kill civilians in that country," 66 percent said the U.S. would be justified in "using military action against the Syrian government."

As with the recent NBC poll, the July survey by Quinnipiac suggested that American public opinion could hinge on what, exactly, the Obama administration chose to do in Syria, if anything. In Quinnipiac's poll, 49 percent said they supported using "weapons which don't risk American lives, such as drones and cruise missiles, to attack the Syrian government," while 38 percent did not.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/polls-americans-attack-syria-support-limited-action/story?id=20118605

[Publicus]

All this Obama bashing. I don't see it that way. There are two basic things going on:

A::: As leader of the world's top military power, he and others have vowed to forbid the use of chemical weapons, and will come down like a ton of bricks on any force that uses them.

B::: The perpetrator of the recent chemical attack in Syria, killing over 1,000, is not clear. It appears to be Assad people, but it's hard to tell for sure.

There's a lot more that could be said, but I still stand behind Obama re; the tough decision: to strike or not to strike. He's damned if he doesn't call a strike (allowing chemical attacks on civilians to go unpunished), and damned if he does.

Some decisions aren't as quick and easy as deciding whether to get Chang or Singha, while balancing 250 lbs of flab on a barstool.

Surely there is more to this nonsense?

Looks like a big False Flag waving in our faces.

Sheeples being distracted from the NSA knuckleheadeness for a call to arms on Syria.

One stupid mess changes hands to keep the public off guard for what is really happening.

If only I knew what was really happening.

When you find out what's really happening, whatever it may be, kindly be sure to let the rest of us know.

Until then, however, what's really happening consists of vague, stargazing, ideations and fantasizings.

Let's instead deal with what is and with the facts we have before us.

[Kommiekat]

Let's instead deal with what is and with the facts we have before us.

Agreed, but how does on separate "facts" from "lies"?

In the case of world governments, "facts" are usually "lies".

Perhaps I can ride on down to Tesco and buy me one of those Lie-O-Meters?

[Gsxrnz]

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.

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

Did they bother to ask the same survey respondents if they actually knew where Syria was, and a few other pertinent questions regarding the country, its political situation and the history surrounding the current conflict?

Now that would have made for some interesting replies and I suggest may render the results of the poll as somewhat meaningless. Surely, isn't Syria somewhere near Australia, right next door to France?

Assinine [sic].

Really? Considering 37% of Americans can't find the USA on a map, I thought my comment was particularly germane.

http://youtu.be/dTG4toZtg4c

Edited September 1, 2013 by Gsxrnz