Obama to make statement on Syria at 1:15 p.m. EDT

[Chicog]

Press Tv not a credible source.

Better than NBC or CBS any day when dealing with Middle Eastern affairs...

If you're pro-Iranian and believe what the mullahs living in the 14th century think.

The joys of freedom of the press and free speech. If you are pro Thailand you can watch Channel3 or whatever. There are many more people of "other persuasions" than there are americans in the world. An open mind is a most valuable asset

Ask the homosexuals swinging from the trees in Iran what they think about the Guardian Councils "other persuasions".

[Chicog]

Putin is supplying weapons for DEFENSE against aggression. To protect PEACEFUL and INNOCENT civilians against aggressors who are much more technically equipped. You may call it 'humanitarian aid".

My friend, I think you are deluded.

It's also not beyond the realms of possibility that the chemical weapons came from Putin as well.

It is a CIA / Saudi operation. The Al Qaeda are just the hired help. Follow the $$$. In this case, the petrodollar.

So the CIA provided chemical weapons to the rebels to use to provoke an attack by America?

<deleted>, you should email that one to George Galloway, he could read that out on Press TV too.

[Chicog]

The two cultures and the two civilizations are indeed radically different.

Bertrand Russell said if you really want to find out what you think and believe about your own culture and civilization, you should go to live for some appreciable time in an opposite one.

Having followed that advice, I'll happily take my own culture and civilization every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Well as I work with a lot of both Sunni and Shi'a, I have to say the Syrian conflict is not something I discuss at the watercooler.

[chuckd]

The two cultures and the two civilizations are indeed radically different.

Bertrand Russell said if you really want to find out what you think and believe about your own culture and civilization, you should go to live for some appreciable time in an opposite one.

Having followed that advice, I'll happily take my own culture and civilization every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Well as I work with a lot of both Sunni and Shi'a, I have to say the Syrian conflict is not something I discuss at the watercooler.

I spent over 30 years listening (not discussing) at the water cooler...Five years in Iran and 25 or so in Saudi.

One can learn a lot more when the sound of their own voice is not drowning out other voices.

[Chicog]

The two cultures and the two civilizations are indeed radically different.

Bertrand Russell said if you really want to find out what you think and believe about your own culture and civilization, you should go to live for some appreciable time in an opposite one.

Having followed that advice, I'll happily take my own culture and civilization every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Well as I work with a lot of both Sunni and Shi'a, I have to say the Syrian conflict is not something I discuss at the watercooler.

I spent over 30 years listening (not discussing) at the water cooler...Five years in Iran and 25 or so in Saudi.

One can learn a lot more when the sound of their own voice is not drowning out other voices.

Funnily enough, it's a subject the locals avoid as well....

[Scott]

Some off-topic posts have been deleted as well as replies.

[Publicus]

The two cultures and the two civilizations are indeed radically different.

Bertrand Russell said if you really want to find out what you think and believe about your own culture and civilization, you should go to live for some appreciable time in an opposite one.

Having followed that advice, I'll happily take my own culture and civilization every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Well as I work with a lot of both Sunni and Shi'a, I have to say the Syrian conflict is not something I discuss at the watercooler.

When it finally does break out, I hope you try your best not to get caught in the crossfire.

[zydeco]

Congress won't rush back but they will debate and vote on this. You can take that to the bank. There is also the chance the the McCain camp will have influence and a LARGER type of action, quite possibly involving Iran in that it would provoke them to respond, could even be approved. Or not.

The McCain camp? That's pretty much limited to the old nutcase himself and his mini-me, Lindsay Graham.

[snarky66]

I guess at long last the president intends to comply with the law.

[Jingthing]

Congress won't rush back but they will debate and vote on this. You can take that to the bank. There is also the chance the the McCain camp will have influence and a LARGER type of action, quite possibly involving Iran in that it would provoke them to respond, could even be approved. Or not.

The McCain camp? That's pretty much limited to the old nutcase himself and his mini-me, Lindsay Graham.

It's not quite that simple. While the obvious initial plan is a limited action, the specific WORDING of the congressional approval which I expect will pass, will be very important. It might be very restrictive or it might be more open ended facing the reality that once you do something, other stuff may happen that you have to deal with later. Even though Obama looks confused here, he has done something pretty major historically in even asking congress. Recently, presidents do NOT do that.

[F430murci]

Yes and there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

This has nothing to do with Iraq. Not objectively anyway. I get it that it has spooked people into not thinking clearly about THIS situation.

I don't get the Iraq statements either. There was a release on August 21 and 1426 deaths and thousands injured so not really an issue if they do or don't exist. We know Assad has them! I don't even think Putin will deny that one!

The "proof" of weapons of mass destruction in Irag was a lot of bs.

Now Obama says there is proof of illegal weapons in Syria but he will not show it to the UN or somebody else.

Besides that decaring war and help the opposition (supported by Al Qaeda) by bombing the country to bits will not help the people of Syria very much too.

The only good thing for the USA is they can "help" to rebuild the country again.

WTH are you talking about. No one is denying chemical weapons exist in Syria. They have confirmed it was sarin gas that was released on August 21 although there was little doubt what it was based on symptoms and what we know Syria had stockpiled.

UN has its own proof as to what chemicals were released so they don't need to get anything from US.

The issue is not if they exist, the issue is who released them on August 21.

Taking out air strips and delivery systems is not bombing a country to bits. US does not profit by rebuilding these countries. It is breaking us!

You can hate on US, but at least get SOME of your "facts" straight first.

Edited September 1, 2013 by F430murci

[Scott]

A number of off-topic posts and the replies to them have been deleted. Please stay on topic and please don't reply to posts which are off-topic, it will get your post deleted as well. For example, this topic is not about TARP, or the banking industry.

[JemJem]

What if, in the near future, it is proven that it was the Free Syrian Army rebels or the Al-Qaida linked Islamists who did the chemical attack ?! Will the US and its allies, then, consider attacking THEM ?! I sort of doubt it.

Hypocrites !

[F430murci]

What if, in the near future, it is proven that it was the Free Syrian Army rebels or the Al-Qaida linked Islamists who did the chemical attack ?! Will the US and its allies, then, consider attacking THEM ?! I sort of doubt it.

Hypocrites !

Why not wait and see if that happens before casting judgment and name calling.

What amazes me is the anger at US who wants to try and stop release of chemical weapons on innocent children and civilians, yet you have no anger toward the suffering caused by those doing the releasing.

There is no denying Assad torturing children, napalming children and civilians and using innocent children as human shields. Yet you have no anger about this???

So who really is the hypocrit?

Edited September 1, 2013 by F430murci

[F430murci]

Syrias government on Sunday mocked Mr. Obamas decision, saying it was a sign of weakness. A state-run newspaper, Al Thawra, called it the start of the historic American retreat, and said Mr. Obama had hesitated because of a sense of implicit defeat and the disappearance of his allies, along with fears that an intervention could become an open war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/world/middleeast/overseas-concern-follows-obamas-new-approach-to-syria.html?_r=0

[F430murci]

Lots of new articles with good insight.

'Ride it out' or 'a killing spree': Experts question Assad's next move

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/01/20280955-ride-it-out-or-a-killing-spree-experts-question-assads-next-move?lite

[F430murci]

Congressmen briefed with latest intel and many are in there way back to capital hill. I have to say I was extremely annoyed they were not interrupting their happy little paid vacations to address something this important. Glad to hear that SOME of them are taking it seriously. Be interesting to see which ones do not show up.

[F430murci]

Lawmakers saying they have human intelligence, satellite intelligence and apparently a lot in place showing Assad did it.

Also, the point I kept making early that everyone ignores is that British and US intelligence have evidence of 14 prior and recent uses of Chemical weapons by Assad in more remote areas. The August 21 release just got to big and drew too much attention.

[Ulysses G.]

I think that your reports are probably true. My problem with all of this is that it was obvious that Obama had no real intention of doing anything to stop it. The mission that the administration described in all the leaks would have been useless other than to give Obama the opportunity to claim that he had "done something" about his red line without accomplishing much at all.

Now that he has been forced into including congress, he may be pushed into some sort of decisive action that has a real point. I am still wary of interfering in a war where it is bad guys on both sides, but if something real can be done to stop the use of chemical weapons, at least it might be justified on some level.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

I agree with Charles Krauthammer - as usual. Do it right or don't do it at all.

If Obama is planning a message-sending three-day attack, preceded by leaks telling the Syrians to move their important military assets to safety, better that he do nothing. Why run the considerable risk if nothing important is changed?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-shamed-into-war/2013/08/29/b97a67a8-10cb-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html

[mania]

Funny to read back a few years & then consider where things are today.

I was just curious & reading all the Hillary Clinton "Assad Must Go " rhetoric from a few

years back.

One of them linked to this

Will Obama Hand The Muslim Brotherhood Syria Next?

Also funny how they were speaking of Egypt also at the time.

I guess none of their reasons stuck. Now they have one & it may turn

on them as the boy who cried wolf once too often

Regardless if true or not.

In the end it does show a history of too many years now meddling in other countries affairs.

At the end of it can anyone claim it is better? Better in Egypt? Better in Libya?

Better in Iraq? Afghanistan? Pakistan?

Meanwhile how is the US doing? Better?

Oh right ignore that we are busy installing democracies

Edited September 2, 2013 by mania

[Kommiekat]

Funny to read back a few years & then consider where things are today.

Also funny what things were done decades ago.

Back in 1983, the US tried to bomb Syria with an A-6 fighter bomber and then again with an A-7.

The A-6 was hit by a Russian made missile and the bomber went down. The pilot was killed and the co-pilot sent to prison.

In the case of the A-7, the plane was hit over the waters near Lebanon, with the pilot having to eject. He was later picked up by a fishing boat.

This ludicrous idea of going in with short strikes as if this was guerrilla warfare is not going to work because there is

Iran and the Hezbollah to consider.

[Scott]

Let's stick a little closer to modern times. Those little walks down memory lane need to be kept relevant to the topic.

[Kommiekat]

Let's stick a little closer to modern times. Those little walks down memory lane need to be kept relevant to the topic.

I am sticking to the topic as well as being relevant.

Simply put, "limited strikes" were done once before and failed.

Surely Syria has upgraded it's weapons to reflect today's technology, therefore, another limited strike is domed to fail.

What has happened to the past reflects what is going on today.

Did I mention anything about the Roman occupation of Syria? No, I didn't.

How much far into the past can one go? People are mentioning Iraq left and right.

Is that not also the past? You have no clear guide.

Kindly be a bit more precise as to what you mean as past.

[Scott]

I will be very precise. This is the rule:

21) Not to discuss moderation publicly in the open forum; this includes individual actions, and specific or general policies and issues. You may send a PM to a moderator to discuss individual actions or email support (at) thaivisa.com to discuss moderation policy. Members should not block contact with moderators or administrators. Doing so will result in suspension.

The next such comment will earn a warning. Public notices in the threads are posted for everyone.

[simple1]

I agree with Charles Krauthammer - as usual. Do it right or don't do it at all.

If Obama is planning a message-sending three-day attack, preceded by leaks telling the Syrians to move their important military assets to safety, better that he do nothing. Why run the considerable risk if nothing important is changed?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-shamed-into-war/2013/08/29/b97a67a8-10cb-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html

+1

[geriatrickid]

I agree with Charles Krauthammer - as usual. Do it right or don't do it at all.

If Obama is planning a message-sending three-day attack, preceded by leaks telling the Syrians to move their important military assets to safety, better that he do nothing. Why run the considerable risk if nothing important is changed?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-shamed-into-war/2013/08/29/b97a67a8-10cb-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html

Because under international law, it is a crime to attack civilians.

The Syrians have key military targets smack dab in the middle of civilian areas.

Nothing grips the worlds' attention that posed scenes of people carrying out dead kids.

[geriatrickid]

Funny to read back a few years & then consider where things are today.

Also funny what things were done decades ago.

Back in 1983, the US tried to bomb Syria with an A-6 fighter bomber and then again with an A-7.

The A-6 was hit by a Russian made missile and the bomber went down. The pilot was killed and the co-pilot sent to prison.

In the case of the A-7, the plane was hit over the waters near Lebanon, with the pilot having to eject. He was later picked up by a fishing boat.

This ludicrous idea of going in with short strikes as if this was guerrilla warfare is not going to work because there is

Iran and the Hezbollah to consider.

Fair observation.

Add to that, some new Russian technology that i bet the Russians would love to test out on the 'Mericans.

[geriatrickid]

Let's hope this cools down. The last thing the US needs is another war. The Iranians are looking for an excuse to hit back.

Let the UAE, Oman and the Saudis build their coalition with the French. It's time for the arab world to take responsibility for its own affairs.

The Russians and Chinese won't dare retaliate against the arab coalition. Iran might. Turkey can finally get the opportunity it so desires to show its presence as a leader for the arabs.\

However, as long as the USA takes the lead, it will detract from the real issue, the brutal Assad regime.

Maybe the USA should take a hint from Israel and stay quiet. Let the arabs sort themselves out.

If the arabs finally take responsibility for an operation it might do wonders for the middle east in general.

[Publicus]

Funny to read back a few years & then consider where things are today.

Also funny what things were done decades ago.

Back in 1983, the US tried to bomb Syria with an A-6 fighter bomber and then again with an A-7.

The A-6 was hit by a Russian made missile and the bomber went down. The pilot was killed and the co-pilot sent to prison.

In the case of the A-7, the plane was hit over the waters near Lebanon, with the pilot having to eject. He was later picked up by a fishing boat.

This ludicrous idea of going in with short strikes as if this was guerrilla warfare is not going to work because there is

Iran and the Hezbollah to consider.

Fair observation.

Add to that, some new Russian technology that i bet the Russians would love to test out on the 'Mericans.

You're talking ancient history in terms of technology to include any present air defense systems the Russians may have provided to Syria or may have recently developed.

The pattern since Gulf War I is that U.S. stealth aircraft take out the systems of air defence. The systems of air defense are helpless against U.S. stealth aircraft. The air defenses can't stop what they can't see and don't know is there attacking them.

Sort of like having the "cloaking device" in the original Star Trek.

Helpless.

Not Iran, not Russia, not Beijing, not Hezbollah can stop the United States naval missile barrage. And the U.S. attack warships are thoroughly protected during combat, unlike the USS Cole in port in Yemen some considerable time ago.

The Russians can take their chances if they try to monkey with U.S. cruise missile guidance systems while the missiles are en route to their targets, but then a few missiles just might "go astray" enough to hit something Russian in the area.

Then what.

That's up to Vlad the Impaler.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Publicus