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

[Publicus]

Flippant is more like it.

[Publicus]

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?

If it might help you to find out what's really happening, then go ahead and buy one.

It's as good as sitting around thinking up schemes of secrecy and intrigue and speculating about what's really happening.

It's that or reality. The choice is plain and clear.

[boomerangutang]

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

If only I knew what was really happening. alt=blink.png></quote>

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

Putting aside the proposal that you may know what's really happening, let me ask if you think there should be repercussions for regimes using chemical weapons to kill people? If so, then how should it be done, with a UN admonishment? Stern words from the UN never accomplished anything, except to garner a few headlines.

Most people (and most Americans) believe the US should not be the world's policeman, but when someone wants an effective military strike, they usually look to the US. I'm thinking Kuwait or Kosovo type dilemmas. Similar to police forces on the beat/sidewalks, there are times when things go wrong, but a place with no police force, like Somalia or central Africa for example, can be daunting, when vandals come cruising the neighborhood.

If nothing is done in response to deadly chemical attacks, then those who consider using such chemicals will be emboldened. Same for biological attacks or 'dirty' radiation bombs. It's a dog eat dog world, so let's at least hope the biggest baddest dog is not some evil m*ther &lt;deleted&gt;.

Edited September 1, 2013 by boomerangutang

[Ulysses G.]

It seems Obama has passed the buck on to Congress.

Nice way to disengage without losing too much face.

The whole world knows that Obama intended to strike without consulting Congress, but backed down due to almost no support inside or outside America. He can't blame this one on Congress. He owns this complete clusterf__k.

[mania]

let me ask if you think there should be repercussions for regimes using chemical weapons to kill people? If so, then how should it be done,

Repercussions yes, Not punishments decided & administered by a single government acting on its own with possible sub-motives

Secondly it should only even ever be considered when solid proof has been supplied

by independent investigators with no affiliations or multiple investigators representing various countries.

If nothing is done in response to deadly chemical attacks, then those who consider using such chemicals will be emboldened.

All the more reason to be sure who the perpetrators are.

Lest you give them a nice tool for doing away with any future opponents they

wish to topple using false flag attacks.

Edited September 1, 2013 by mania

[jpinx]

The hang-em-high brigade is out in full force now and looks like their going to hang Obama while they're about it.

[Publicus]

The hang-em-high brigade is out in full force now and looks like their going to hang Obama while they're about it.

Eighty percent of posters here have been trying to do that in their every post since January 20th 2009.

[jpinx]

ok -- here is the reality -- Syria is NOT a signatory to the chemical weapons control treaties nor to the International Criminal Court.

quote ... " .....the ICC will only have jurisdiction over events in Syria if there is a Security Council referral........." /quote

There's more, but the international legal situation is far from clear since Syria never opted to sign the relevant treaties.

http://www.ejiltalk.org/can-the-icc-prosecute-for-use-of-chemical-weapons-in-syria/

Now we are faced with a country doing something within it's borders which - while we don't like it - we can not do anything legally. As I have said before - it's like having bad neighbours - you can complain but you can't go in.

[hawker9000]

It seems Obama has passed the buck on to Congress.

Nice way to disengage without losing too much face.

Expect a tight vote.

'Not sure he really wants votes in Congress to go "his way". The Senate will rubber stamp whatever he says, but I don't really think the House will go along here. But that's good for Obama: he needs an out and someone to blame, not a permission slip... What a pickle he's got himself in this time. He'll always be famous for that "red line", and he's thrown some of his own under the bus (Kerry & Biden).

[Ulysses G.]

Barack Obama is not George Bush.

Correct. George Bush built a coalition of 40 countries before he attacked another country. Obama has built a "coalition" of one country other than his own.

[Publicus]

Barack Obama is not George Bush.

Correct. George Bush built a coalition of 40 countries before he attacked another country. Obama has built a "coalition" of one country other than his own.

You posted to this point before and I responded to it.

How often are you going to make the same post?

Very few countries have the naval and military capability, prowess, sophistication to conduct the kinds of offshore, from a distance, precision missile strikes the U.S. can do.

One, the UK, has opted out.

Another, France, is in.

Russia and the CCP-PRC have disabled the Security Council. Nato is shockingly indifferent. The Arab League wants action but by someone other than itself.

Who wants 40 countries' navies crowded into the eastern Mediterranean anyway?

[Ulysses G.]

Obama would take aboard any country he could who would support him just to appear less alone. Only one country in the whole wide world has done so. The rest is the usual spin.

Other than the fact that Bush could get Congress and other countries to support him, the two men have more and more in common every day.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[mania]

We know chemical weapons have been used and that that is unacceptable since World War I (1914 - 18).

That's what really happened.

We ignore realities at our own peril.

It is as if the lights are on but nobody is at home

Folks have repeated often yes it seems chems were used.

The bigger question is who used them. No conclusive evidence as yet provided by anyone.

Yet *that* reality seems to escape fear & war mongers

Edited September 1, 2013 by mania

[chuckd]

The hang-em-high brigade is out in full force now and looks like their going to hang Obama while they're about it.

Obama hung himself with this one. He didn't need any help.

[chuckd]

The hang-em-high brigade is out in full force now and looks like their going to hang Obama while they're about it.

Eighty percent of posters here have been trying to do that in their every post since January 20th 2009.

Actually, this particular 20% started in 2007, when I saw his resume/CV.

PS: Just a little note...did you know that when you hit the "like" button instead of the "quote" button it sends a notification to the "likee" even though you unlike it almost immediatly? I found out by trial and error also.

[Chicog]

Obama would take aboard any country he could who would support him just to appear less alone. Only one country in the whole wide world has done so. The rest is the usual spin.

Other than the fact that Bush could get Congress and other countries to support him, the two men have more and more in common every day.

Perhaps the reason Obama can't get anyone on board is because Bush betrayed their trust so badly?

[Ulysses G.]

Obama would take aboard any country he could who would support him just to appear less alone. Only one country in the whole wide world has done so. The rest is the usual spin.

Other than the fact that Bush could get Congress and other countries to support him, the two men have more and more in common every day.

Perhaps the reason Obama can't get anyone on board is because Bush betrayed their trust so badly?

Perhaps it's because no one else wants to get involved in a civil war where there are mostly bad guys on both sides. Obama is only doing so now to save face because of a stupid remark about a red line that makes him look weak as he has already been been ignoring the "red line" for months and everyone knows it.

I might have supported him if he was planning on something other that a very "limited" cosmetic strike which would accomplish pretty much nothing as far as stopping the use of chemical weapons. It is pretty obvious that it was all for show.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[Mosha]

Obama would take aboard any country he could who would support him just to appear less alone. Only one country in the whole wide world has done so. The rest is the usual spin.

Other than the fact that Bush could get Congress and other countries to support him, the two men have more and more in common every day.

Perhaps the reason Obama can't get anyone on board is because Bush betrayed their trust so badly?

Perhaps it's because no one else wants to get involved in a civil war where there are mostly bad guys on both sides. Obama is only doing so now to save face because of a stupid remark about a red line that makes him look weak as he has already been been ignoring the "red line" for months and everyone knows it.

I might have supported him if he was planning on something other that a very "limited" cosmetic strike which would accomplish pretty much nothing as far as stopping the use of chemical weapons. It is pretty obvious that it was all for show.

I can't disagree with your 1st sentence.

[boomerangutang]

<quote>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. </quote>

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

Boomerangutang responds: Whether or not a country's gov't signs the treaty, does not lessen the gravity of using such weapons.

It seems Obama has passed the buck on to Congress.
Nice way to disengage without losing too much face.

The whole world knows that Obama intended to strike without consulting Congress, but backed down due to almost no support inside or outside America. He can't blame this one on Congress. He owns this complete clusterf__k.

Obama is endeavoring to find out what's going on. If you want to fault him for that, that's your prerogative. What other countries are digging deep to find out what's happening there? Plus, what other countries have the resources of the US to do so? With Wikileaks and Snowden types running loose, individual countries' intelligence agencies are much more reluctant to share info - as they were a few years ago. So it's become a more non-partisan endeavor - to gauge what's really going on in Syria and other trouble spots.

Edited September 1, 2013 by boomerangutang

[boomerangutang]

Gauging what's going on there, is not like making a few phone calls to Syria and asking some probing questions.

Those folks are culturally divorced from telling the truth. They learn to lie from the time they're still wearing pampers. Telling the truth is considered silly, naive and childish in such places. Similar to Thailand and many other places.

Whether dealing with Assad, Syrian rebels, Thaksin, or bank robbers, ....the only way to possibly find out what's really going on is to do adept investigations.

[Scott]

An off-topic post and those responding to it have been removed. Please stay on topic and keep the discourse civil.

[Publicus]

The hang-em-high brigade is out in full force now and looks like their going to hang Obama while they're about it.

Obama hung himself with this one. He didn't need any help.

No one is hanging here.

Britain, the US and France being among the leading democracies of the world, the impact of the vote in the House of Commons has had a profound effect on both the United States and the Republic of France.

The leaders of the US and France were ready to go ahead on their own authority, which each could have done. However, the vote in the Commons has fundamentally altered the equation. Both the presidents of the US and of France have taken notice and have decided to present their initiatives to their national legislatures.

In the US, the Congress is now stuck with sharing in Obama's initiative. The Congress had been lying low and quiet. While some Members of Congress had been calling for a vote - some - the leaders of both parties in the House and the Senate had not even discussed the possibility of recalling either body, or both, to conduct a debate and have a vote.

Congress doesn't want to have to vote in this matter. The Repugnicans hate to have to vote to support Prez Obama on anything, but they're going to have to support him on this one. A number of Dems don't like the military aspect but they're going to have to support the commander in chief.

The Congress, which had been ducking and avoiding a vote on this, is now getting it from Obama sans vaseline.

The Obama haters here have been hollering for a vote by the Congress and now they are going to get the vote they've been demanding. That they're now saying this is a defeat for Prez Obama shows the contradictions in their thinking and in their positions and views. They always criticize Prez Obama no matter what. How fickle.

Accordingly, I give to them the Fickle Finger of Fate Award.

[Ulysses G.]

The leaders of the US and France were ready to go ahead on their own authority, which each could have done.

Not according to this guy:

"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."

-Barrack Hussein Obama 2007

[nong38]

BO seems suddenly to have cold feet without Britain at his side, well, he does have the French but the longer he waits the harder it becomes. Assad is no dummy he will have moved the rides around. Strangely it seems that Britain might have improved its status in the world at the moment. I still dont see what is to be gained from attacking Syria right now but that might change in the future and the mood in Britain could also change, we need to see what the UN come up with and see what they propose.

I think it needs to be said again that its a muslim problem and they nned to sort it out, only Syria can free its people, if we do it we will be liberators, its not the same.

[F430murci]

Just heard report on TV here that lawmakers ate saying intel showing Assad did this is pretty conclusive (satellite, witnesses and etc.) and that congressmen are apparently on their way to capital hill.

British and US intelligence say they know of have evidence of 14 other recent chemical attacks by Assad in more remote areas against rebel forces. The August 21 release just got too big and too much attention.

Pub, I am with you. I cannot believe all of the animosity toward US when we have innocent civilians getting gassed and school yards being napalmed. It is like people have completely lost all humanity because they are so angry at and obsessed with Bama. Sad.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted.

[Scott]

Arab States Urge Action Against Syrian Government:

http://news.yahoo.com/arab-states-urge-international-action-against-syrian-government-204455757.html

[Robby nz]

From elsewhere :

And simply because he made a foolish statement last year, he is considering a unilateral attack on Syria just to save face.

So what is it going to do if he does (against we are told against the wishes of the majority of the American people,) go ahead and bomb Libya other than show that he has acted against the use of chemical weapons as he said he would.

Well it will kill more people to start with.

From what I read the rebel forces in Libya include groups from other countries who have stepped in to 'help' including al-Qaeda.

Even if Obama did manage to get rid of the Assad Govt what would take their place?

An al-Qaeda backed govt that would start a purge.

Does it not seem strange that the US is supposed to be fighting al-Qaeda in one, or 2, other countries and backing and arming them to fight a Govt in another?

[Publicus]

Just heard report on TV here that lawmakers ate saying intel showing Assad did this is pretty conclusive (satellite, witnesses and etc.) and that congressmen are apparently on their way to capital hill.

British and US intelligence say they know of have evidence of 14 other recent chemical attacks by Assad in more remote areas against rebel forces. The August 21 release just got too big and too much attention.

Pub, I am with you. I cannot believe all of the animosity toward US when we have innocent civilians getting gassed and school yards being napalmed. It is like people have completely lost all humanity because they are so angry at and obsessed with Bama. Sad.

I'm glad you're with me but I got deleted.

I guess I should have hammered Obama with criticism, which apparently is a more acceptable posting.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Publicus

[hawker9000]

There's really no question about the chemical attacks. Those few who say there is just plain have another agenda. That's not the question. Neither is the president's authority to order the attack the question. He's said he has the authority and believes he does and even repeated that in the now-famous speech of 2 days ago. The question is whether the US has some rational motive in getting involved in this way (or any other way). If so, then you have to make some halfway convincing argument that either (a) the limited strike Obama is planning will actually do anything to curtail the further use of chemical weapons by Assad and is actually anything more than a face-saving show, or ( there's any use of force by the US that can reasonably be expected to bring about (as in, there's some actual likelihood of) some positive outcome. The military says no. Given that, and the risks of escalation involved, and as much sympathy as most of us have for Assad's many victims, I really don't see anything driving all this except Obama's loss of credibility, and when personalities are involved to this degree, these adventures usually prove reckless.