Syria's Assad says Western strike could trigger regional war

[Publicus]

Anyone who says at any time that Russia looks sane and, by implication or explicitly, says the United States looks insane needs his head examined.

[Ulysses G.]

Liz O'Bagy, an Institute of The Study of War researcher who made trips to various parts of Syria in the last year,

O'Bagy is also the political director for the Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF), a group that advocates within the United States for Syrias rebels. She is hardly an unbiased source.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

Publicus

Assad is a tyrant dictator who has been mass slaughtering the people of Syria for more than two years now so that he and his small corrupt and cruel gang of oligarchs can retain power and control the wealth of the country. Assad is a mass murderer, a merciless tyrant.

So you say Publicus.

You have been very keen all through this topic to see the US start once again lobbing missiles at another country in this instance which poses no direct threat to them.

They have armed and trained the rebels, acts which have surely caused more deaths and now they want to go in and cause even more.

Assad is indeed a tyrant but tell us, what sort of a government will Syria end up with if the US manage to kill off Assad as they did Saddam and Gaddafi.

I am wondering how you think the Syrian people will be better off.

I read that there are already parts of Syria that have been taken over by the rebels and are subjected to Shiite law.

Do you really think that is what the Syrian people want?

The Biggest Myth Of The Syrian War Is That The Rebels Are Dominated By al Qaeda

Liz O'Bagy, an Institute of The Study of War researcher who made trips to various parts of Syria in the last year, wrote in The Wall Street Journal that "the war in Syria is not being waged entirely, or even predominantly, by dangerous Islamists and al Qaeda die-hards."

O'Bagy's post has been criticized for being biased toward "moderate" rebels — which O'Bagy defines as those who have respected women's and minority rights while calling for a civilian government — nevertheless, jihadist experts agree that the fear of an "al Qaeda takeover" is exaggerated.

"Rebel units are distributed across a broad ideological spectrum, with secular units at one pole and Salafi jihadists at the other, and most falling between the two," according to a new report by experts Jeffrey White, Andrew J. Tabler, and Aaron Y. Zelin of The Washington Institute. "A major differentiation among Islamic units is between those that are Islamic with a national or Syrian agenda and those with a global jihadist mission."

Read more: http://www.businessi...9#ixzz2eASk13EC

I really enjoyed the "Comments" section of that article. All the news that fits, eh?

Yes, as the article itself points out, there has for a long time been a great deal of misinformation, disinformation, mythologies about the United States vis a vis militant radical Islamic groups and organizations in several specific instances, places, circumstances.

There's plenty of proof of it propagated over a long period of time by many intellectually sloppy people, people who are reckless and irresponsible.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Liz O'Bagy, an Institute of The Study of War researcher who made trips to various parts of Syria in the last year,

O'Bagy is also the political director for the Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF), a group that advocates within the United States for Syrias rebels. She is hardly an unbiased source.

Liz O'Bagy is intimate with the situation in Syria and the reality and facts of the situation on the ground.

The Wall Street Journal has published her findings that Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the US, the UK and France are working together to strengthen the moderate forces against the radical Islamic forces to block a radical Islamic takeover of Syria. A joint training center is being established in Jordan.

The United States is working together in this with allies that are both Western and Arab.

Lix O'Bagy's knowledge and the joint Western-Arab allied program sound very positive and encouraging to me. I'm glad we have a Liz OBagy who knows the situation first hand.

Prez Obama and his team are not the neocons who had their self-interested lackeys in Iraq. Obama and his team are smarter than that.

[uptheos]

Obama said as much on Tuesday: "We have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition, allow Syria ultimately to free itself from the kinds of terrible civil war, death and activity that we've been seeing on the ground."

He also said that he did not set down a red line. Very few Americans or foreigners are buying it.

Obama said it wasn't his red line, but rather a line set by the international community.

What he meant to say at the time, was that he was setting a very faint, very fuzzy red line.

Looking at him answering questions after the meeting, he didn't look or speak like an American president.....shades of 'that' debate, all woolly and fuzzy, just like his red lines.

[Publicus]

Obama said as much on Tuesday: "We have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition, allow Syria ultimately to free itself from the kinds of terrible civil war, death and activity that we've been seeing on the ground."

He also said that he did not set down a red line. Very few Americans or foreigners are buying it.

Obama said it wasn't his red line, but rather a line set by the international community.

What he meant to say at the time, was that he was setting a very faint, very fuzzy red line.

Looking at him answering questions after the meeting, he didn't look or speak like an American president.....shades of 'that' debate, all woolly and fuzzy, just like his red lines.

The United States is working together on the Syria crisis with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UK and France.

It's a joint Western-Arab response that has a direct impact of both.

[Scott]

Troll posts and replies have been deleted. This topic is about Syria and Western strikes. Continued trolling and inflammatory posting will result in warnings and suspensions.

[boomerangutang]

Even if we were to untangle the giordian knot of alliances in that region, that's no assurance that a spade stays a spade. it's like herding cats. Anyone there can change affiliations in a Damascus minute (sorry to mix metaphors). They are also human, so as such, they follow leaders. When the leader changes, so too will his minions. If every faction had a flag and a coat of arms indicating their benefactors, we'd see a patchwork of all types of flags waving from the dunes.

As each day goes by, I lean more to letting the Arabs there sort it out for themselves. If they gas and blow themselves up, well, too bad for the non-combatants in the line of fire, but that's about as far as my sentiments go.

[Mosha]

Obama said as much on Tuesday: "We have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition, allow Syria ultimately to free itself from the kinds of terrible civil war, death and activity that we've been seeing on the ground."

He also said that he did not set down a red line. Very few Americans or foreigners are buying it.

Obama said it wasn't his red line, but rather a line set by the international community.

What he meant to say at the time, was that he was setting a very faint, very fuzzy red line.

Looking at him answering questions after the meeting, he didn't look or speak like an American president.....shades of 'that' debate, all woolly and fuzzy, just like his red lines.

The United States is working together on the Syria crisis with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UK and France.

It's a joint Western-Arab response that has a direct impact of both.

With the Arabs just cheering from the touch-line.

[puck2]

I guess the US and Obama are unaware of the time when the world will hear again "mission accomplished". This time after 3 days?

At now they and the other supporters have to choose between two devils, Assad and the islamists. If the islamists win there will be a strong islamistic line from Iran to the Lebanon.

Better situation than before with dictator Assad? Assad surviving, the US and the West would be a laughing stock for wasting peoples lives and the dearly needed budget money.

Obama made a big mistake talking about the red line.

An attack will create a chaos in the Middle East most certainly. As cruel as it would be, Obama, the US and the other nations are in a danger to save Assad or to support the Islamists, just not a guarantee for a peace in the future. The US and their followers have not been the winners in the Iraq war, they will not be a winner in the case of an attack on Assad. Because it's not the military power that will solve this conflict. Remember Iraq and Afghanistan where the US and the other nations created more chaos than peace and order. It's the religion, stupid....

If they feel oblieged to avoid gas attacks in the future for moral reasons, the US are losing again some credibility. Maybe they did forget already the support for Saddam's gas attack on the Iranians without any remorse.

Edited September 7, 2013 by puck2

[Ulysses G.]

Liz O'Bagy, an Institute of The Study of War researcher who made trips to various parts of Syria in the last year,

O'Bagy is also the political director for the Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF), a group that advocates within the United States for Syrias rebels. She is hardly an unbiased source.

The Wall Street Journal has published her findings that Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the US, the UK and France are working together to strengthen the moderate forces against the radical Islamic forces to block a radical Islamic takeover of Syria. A joint training center is being established in Jordan.

They also published a clarification admitting that she is a paid spokesperson for a political action committee that supports the Syrian rebels.

Wall Street Journal Issues a Kinda Important Clarification to its Syria Op-Ed

wsj

by Evan McMurry | September 6th, 2013

The Wall Street Journal issued a clarification on Friday that the author of an op-ed defending the Syrian Free Armya piece cited by Secretary of State John Kerry and Senator John McCain as evidence that the rebels were not the jihadists some had portrayed them to be was in fact affiliated with the Syrian Emergency Task Force, a political action committee that explicitly supports the Syrian rebels.

http://www.mediaite....lizabeth-obagy/

Edited September 7, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[MikeOboe57]

I wonder when the American Governments became infected with that pathological obsession of having to "punish" smaller nations based on the claim that by Grace of God they are the World's ultimate moral authority while at the same time willfully and completely ignoring that each of their "punitive" measures has left behind utter chaos, bloodshed and instability.

And considering that Ban Ki-Moon is the most useless person ever occupying the seat of the UNSecGen - a male equivalent of YS - the question stands what is the use of the United Nations if they cannot protect its smaller members from a klutz like Obama and his pack of "willing" henchmen.

The actions of the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others are a blatant violation of Chapter 2 of the United Nation's Charter. They show the UN the finger and Ban Ki-Moon is once more chickening out, just like during the war against Libya where Obama and his henchmen decided to "expand" and rewrite two UNSC resolutions for their purpose of "regime change", and consequently and unsurprisingly creating failed state Nr. 3.

[Sing_Sling]

Anyone who says at any time that Russia looks sane and, by implication or explicitly, says the United States looks insane needs his head examined.

I guess I could copy you and either report this to the mods or just say that it is insulting, inflammatory yadda yadda yadda.

The least you could do, so as not to be completely hypocritical, would be to show the context of the statement - being that Russia looks the saner party simply because they are suggesting a path not strewn with countless dead - AGAIN - due to the US bombings.

Your response that Putin is a worse man because he'll be a bad host for the Olympics . .. well . . . even you must admit that's a bit sad.

Russia sold chemical weapons to Syria . . . the US sold chemical weapons to Sadaam to use against Iran. The US used napalm in Vietnam and Iraq and still have piles of the stuff.

Syria should not be another test site for US weaponry and ACCORDING TO THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD US bombings could have ramifications beyond what the myopic war-mongers can see

[nong38]

The current Syrian regeme is not a good one, its never been good but up until the rebels came out to play it has been stablish, they are, however clinging onto power any way that they can. It seems highly likely that they have used sarin on their own people which cannot be defended. The rebels are not a bunch of angels either and if they were installed as the government would life be any better for the Syrian public?

Just because some in the world feel they have to do something does mean that they should, how would it help if you knocked over a few military sites? It would not for certain stop any further future use of chemicals and it could indeed trigger strikes against Israel ( old favourite this one if you get attacked in the middle east) or Turkey, then there is Russia, its not in their interests to get involved but Obama is talking about America and the world's credibility, what is Russia asks the same question? This could get out of control very quickly.

Best to wait and see what the UN comes up with and think very carefully before getting involved in a battle which you cannot win and has no value to the west, all minus to me and no plus.

Don t misunderstand me, Syria is a mess and what is going on there I cannot nor try to defend I jsut dont see any good coming out of getting involved, its a Syrian Problem, its an Arab Problem they must sort it out if the UN cannot.

[rijb]

I wonder when the American Governments became infected with that pathological obsession of having to "punish" smaller nations based on the claim that by Grace of God they are the World's ultimate moral authority while at the same time willfully and completely ignoring that each of their "punitive" measures has left behind utter chaos, bloodshed and instability.

And considering that Ban Ki-Moon is the most useless person ever occupying the seat of the UNSecGen - a male equivalent of YS - the question stands what is the use of the United Nations if they cannot protect its smaller members from a klutz like Obama and his pack of "willing" henchmen.

The actions of the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others are a blatant violation of Chapter 2 of the United Nation's Charter. They show the UN the finger and Ban Ki-Moon is once more chickening out, just like during the war against Libya where Obama and his henchmen decided to "expand" and rewrite two UNSC resolutions for their purpose of "regime change", and consequently and unsurprisingly creating failed state Nr. 3.

Grow up! It's not about punishment. It's about deterrence. If the world rolls over and lets these idiots use chemical weapons on their own people, then someone else (Iran?) will come along and try to top them (nukes?).

Stop trying to use the UN charter to disguise your boner for the U.S.

[Ulysses G.]

Grow up! It's not about punishment. It's about deterrence.

You have a point, but announcing in advance that the strike would be limited, would be hours rather than days, would not seek regime change and then giving Assad plenty of time to move his assetts is not going to deter anyone. It is downright assinine. What is the point?

[rijb]

Grow up! It's not about punishment. It's about deterrence.

You have a point, but announcing in advance that the strike would be limited, would be hours rather than days, would not seek regime change and then giving Assad plenty of time to move his assetts is not going to deter anyone. It is downright assinine. What is the point?

I agree. Obama might be a so-so president. But, he's doing a piss-poor job of being commander-in-chief!

[MikeOboe57]

I wonder when the American Governments became infected with that pathological obsession of having to "punish" smaller nations based on the claim that by Grace of God they are the World's ultimate moral authority while at the same time willfully and completely ignoring that each of their "punitive" measures has left behind utter chaos, bloodshed and instability.

And considering that Ban Ki-Moon is the most useless person ever occupying the seat of the UNSecGen - a male equivalent of YS - the question stands what is the use of the United Nations if they cannot protect its smaller members from a klutz like Obama and his pack of "willing" henchmen.

The actions of the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others are a blatant violation of Chapter 2 of the United Nation's Charter. They show the UN the finger and Ban Ki-Moon is once more chickening out, just like during the war against Libya where Obama and his henchmen decided to "expand" and rewrite two UNSC resolutions for their purpose of "regime change", and consequently and unsurprisingly creating failed state Nr. 3.

Grow up! It's not about punishment. It's about deterrence. If the world rolls over and lets these idiots use chemical weapons on their own people, then someone else (Iran?) will come along and try to top them (nukes?).

Stop trying to use the UN charter to disguise your boner for the U.S.

Oh silly me, it is deterrence, and I thought it was regime change, like in Iraq or Libya or Kosovo. So by turning Syria into another Iraq or Libya where lawless militias murder, bomb and kidnap on a daily basis we might stop someone - we still don't know who used those chemicals - from using them again?

I have worked as "peacekeeper" in various countries recovering from vicious civil wars. And I have nothing but utter contempt for politicians or states that willfully incite unrest and civil wars in other countries to promote their own agendas and then "take French leave" when everything runs down the drain.

And seeing the result of America's recent "deterrence" attempts and still calling for one more "limited surgical strike" makes it clear who has to grow up here.

[giggles]

its disturbing that the ruskies are still out of step with everyone else as usual ,name one time they were ever in step .

its in their DNA to always be at logger heads with everybody else .

[rijb]

I wonder when the American Governments became infected with that pathological obsession of having to "punish" smaller nations based on the claim that by Grace of God they are the World's ultimate moral authority while at the same time willfully and completely ignoring that each of their "punitive" measures has left behind utter chaos, bloodshed and instability.

And considering that Ban Ki-Moon is the most useless person ever occupying the seat of the UNSecGen - a male equivalent of YS - the question stands what is the use of the United Nations if they cannot protect its smaller members from a klutz like Obama and his pack of "willing" henchmen.

The actions of the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others are a blatant violation of Chapter 2 of the United Nation's Charter. They show the UN the finger and Ban Ki-Moon is once more chickening out, just like during the war against Libya where Obama and his henchmen decided to "expand" and rewrite two UNSC resolutions for their purpose of "regime change", and consequently and unsurprisingly creating failed state Nr. 3.

Grow up! It's not about punishment. It's about deterrence. If the world rolls over and lets these idiots use chemical weapons on their own people, then someone else (Iran?) will come along and try to top them (nukes?).

Stop trying to use the UN charter to disguise your boner for the U.S.

Oh silly me, it is deterrence, and I thought it was regime change, like in Iraq or Libya or Kosovo. So by turning Syria into another Iraq or Libya where lawless militias murder, bomb and kidnap on a daily basis we might stop someone - we still don't know who used those chemicals - from using them again?

I have worked as "peacekeeper" in various countries recovering from vicious civil wars. And I have nothing but utter contempt for politicians or states that willfully incite unrest and civil wars in other countries to promote their own agendas and then "take French leave" when everything runs down the drain.

And seeing the result of America's recent "deterrence" attempts and still calling for one more "limited surgical strike" makes it clear who has to grow up here.

I don't think Obama has the balls for a regime change.

Are you serious about not knowing who used the chemicaIs? Assuming police shows aren't beyond your grasp, who had the motive, means and opportunity to use them?

I was working in Iran when Carter screwed the pooch on that regime change. That was my time to grow up.

[MikeOboe57]

I don't think Obama has the balls for a regime change.

Are you serious about not knowing who used the chemicaIs? Assuming police shows aren't beyond your grasp, who had the motive, means and opportunity to use them?

I was working in Iran when Carter screwed the pooch on that regime change. That was my time to grow up.

Obama is the smallest cog in this machinery. The decision for regime change is made by others.

I know that the American Government claims that they are "very confident" that it was the Syrian Army who used it. Pfft. As a former UN Military Observer I know a lot about fabricated evidence. Like the Bread Shop Massacre in Sarajevo that started the NATO airstrikes on Serbia - blamed on the Serbs, committed by the Bosnians on their own civilians - with TV crews on standby in the adjacent streets to cover the aftermath. And easily to verify once you have seen the place.

1. So who has the motive to use C-weapons? An advancing army? You don't contaminate the area you are going to occupy. A retreating army? Of course, as you deny the enemy the immediate use of the terrain you just gave up.

2. Who has the means to use C-weapons? Any group armed with mortars, light howitzers or rocket lauchers (Katjushas). The gas can also be deployed by a simple IED.

3. Who has the opportunity to use C-weapons? Both sides.

4. Who benefits from an alleged attack with C-weapons? The rebels. The Government will shoot itself in the foot as they would give Obama a reason to intervene.

Answer: 1. rebels, 2. both sides, 3. both sides, 4. rebels. Result: rebels win 4:2.

And now ask yourself: Did the Syrian Government benefit in any way from the alleged C-weapon attack? No, they didn't. So why do you think they did it? Because they are idiots? This is not a dumb Hollywood movie where the "evil" guy is "really really" evil.

But I also accept that neither you nor me can stop the regime in Washington to add another grand-style mess-up to their splendid record.

Why does a dog lick his balls? Because he can. Why do the USA trample over international treaties and laws and willfully marginalize the UN? Because they can.

[Richard W]

Assuming police shows aren't beyond your grasp, who had the motive, means and opportunity to use them?

People on both sides.

According to the intelligence report, the Syrian government has been saddled with a local decision that would not have been approved at a higher level.

[Exsexyman]

I wonder when the American Governments became infected with that pathological obsession of having to "punish" smaller nations based on the claim that by Grace of God they are the World's ultimate moral authority while at the same time willfully and completely ignoring that each of their "punitive" measures has left behind utter chaos, bloodshed and instability.

And considering that Ban Ki-Moon is the most useless person ever occupying the seat of the UNSecGen - a male equivalent of YS - the question stands what is the use of the United Nations if they cannot protect its smaller members from a klutz like Obama and his pack of "willing" henchmen.

The actions of the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others are a blatant violation of Chapter 2 of the United Nation's Charter. They show the UN the finger and Ban Ki-Moon is once more chickening out, just like during the war against Libya where Obama and his henchmen decided to "expand" and rewrite two UNSC resolutions for their purpose of "regime change", and consequently and unsurprisingly creating failed state Nr. 3.

Grow up! It's not about punishment. It's about deterrence. If the world rolls over and lets these idiots use chemical weapons on their own people, then someone else (Iran?) will come along and try to top them (nukes?).

Stop trying to use the UN charter to disguise your boner for the U.S.

Oh silly me, it is deterrence, and I thought it was regime change, like in Iraq or Libya or Kosovo. So by turning Syria into another Iraq or Libya where lawless militias murder, bomb and kidnap on a daily basis we might stop someone - we still don't know who used those chemicals - from using them again?

I have worked as "peacekeeper" in various countries recovering from vicious civil wars. And I have nothing but utter contempt for politicians or states that willfully incite unrest and civil wars in other countries to promote their own agendas and then "take French leave" when everything runs down the drain.

And seeing the result of America's recent "deterrence" attempts and still calling for one more "limited surgical strike" makes it clear who has to grow up here.

There seems to be agreement on all sides that some kind of sarin based chemical weapons were used, but conflicting opinions as to who used them. The US have had three weeks to produce this 'evidence', i think it's highly unlikely that any will be forthcoming now. The Russians sent a hundred page report to the UN on their investigations and findings, which concluded that, given the type of weapon used, and the delivery system, the attack was likely to have come from the rebels. There will clearly be no consensus on this, although the timing of the attack, ie, it happened just when UN inspectors arrived in Syria, at a time when the rebels were suffering reverse after reverse, and were therefore desperate for the US to intervene on their behalf, would suggest there was only one side who would have a clear motive to use them. Especially after President Obama's silly and naive,'backing himself into a corner' statements, which effectively spelt out what it would take for the US to intervene! After all, the rebels did have sarin gas, some of the Al Qaeda affiliated ones were arrested in Turkey in possession of it, trying to smuggle it into Syria. Presumably like all smuggling operations, whether drugs, weapons, human trafficking etc, for every one that gets stopped, half a dozen or so get through.

I wonder what would happen if Russia decided to take the same approach as the US on this. If they decided that in the light of their findings, it would be appropriate to launch a 'limited surgical strike' on the Western backed Al Qaeda rebels and the areas under their control, as a 'deterrence, to downgrade their capabilities, and to serve as a warning that the world would not roll over and allow these idiots to use chemical weapons on their own people. I suspect we all know the answer to that one. President Obama would be babbling incoherently, and John McCain would be jumping up and down calling for World War 3!

[lannarebirth]

I wonder when the American Governments became infected with that pathological obsession of having to "punish" smaller nations based on the claim that by Grace of God they are the World's ultimate moral authority while at the same time willfully and completely ignoring that each of their "punitive" measures has left behind utter chaos, bloodshed and instability.

And considering that Ban Ki-Moon is the most useless person ever occupying the seat of the UNSecGen - a male equivalent of YS - the question stands what is the use of the United Nations if they cannot protect its smaller members from a klutz like Obama and his pack of "willing" henchmen.

The actions of the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others are a blatant violation of Chapter 2 of the United Nation's Charter. They show the UN the finger and Ban Ki-Moon is once more chickening out, just like during the war against Libya where Obama and his henchmen decided to "expand" and rewrite two UNSC resolutions for their purpose of "regime change", and consequently and unsurprisingly creating failed state Nr. 3.

What you and many others fail to realize is, is that leaving behind "utter chaos, bloodshed and instability" is the intention of the exercise. That's the working definition of a "win" these days. I just wish they'd tell the poor bastards that have to fight and die for that kind of "victory".

[rijb]

I don't think Obama has the balls for a regime change.

Are you serious about not knowing who used the chemicaIs? Assuming police shows aren't beyond your grasp, who had the motive, means and opportunity to use them?

I was working in Iran when Carter screwed the pooch on that regime change. That was my time to grow up.

Obama is the smallest cog in this machinery. The decision for regime change is made by others.

I know that the American Government claims that they are "very confident" that it was the Syrian Army who used it. Pfft. As a former UN Military Observer I know a lot about fabricated evidence. Like the Bread Shop Massacre in Sarajevo that started the NATO airstrikes on Serbia - blamed on the Serbs, committed by the Bosnians on their own civilians - with TV crews on standby in the adjacent streets to cover the aftermath. And easily to verify once you have seen the place.

1. So who has the motive to use C-weapons? An advancing army? You don't contaminate the area you are going to occupy. A retreating army? Of course, as you deny the enemy the immediate use of the terrain you just gave up.

2. Who has the means to use C-weapons? Any group armed with mortars, light howitzers or rocket lauchers (Katjushas). The gas can also be deployed by a simple IED.

3. Who has the opportunity to use C-weapons? Both sides.

4. Who benefits from an alleged attack with C-weapons? The rebels. The Government will shoot itself in the foot as they would give Obama a reason to intervene.

Answer: 1. rebels, 2. both sides, 3. both sides, 4. rebels. Result: rebels win 4:2.

And now ask yourself: Did the Syrian Government benefit in any way from the alleged C-weapon attack? No, they didn't. So why do you think they did it? Because they are idiots? This is not a dumb Hollywood movie where the "evil" guy is "really really" evil.

But I also accept that neither you nor me can stop the regime in Washington to add another grand-style mess-up to their splendid record.

Why does a dog lick his balls? Because he can. Why do the USA trample over international treaties and laws and willfully marginalize the UN? Because they can.

You might have been a good peace keeper. But, you'd make a lousy cop. Your feelings toward the US is clouding your judgement.

Assad said he would stop at nothing to keep his regime. And he's keeping his promise.

Even the EU agrees that strong evidence points to Assad and urges a 'strong response'.

No one wants history to repeat itself. But, we shouldn't go into 'analysis paralysis' every time we get deja vu.

Contrary to your constant mantra, the USA is not the bad guy and the UN is not the good guy in this situation. Assad is the number one suspect here. And he's not trying real hard to prove somebody else deserves the blame.

[rijb]

Try to focus on more recent and pertinent history... http://www.businessinsider.com/syria-videos-chemical-weapons-attacks-sarin-gas-obama-2013-9

[Scott]

Posts deleted. Continued argumentative and inflammatory posts will be deleted.

[boomerangutang]

I wonder when the American Governments became infected with that pathological obsession of having to "punish" smaller nations based on the claim that by Grace of God they are the World's ultimate moral authority while at the same time willfully and completely ignoring that each of their "punitive" measures has left behind utter chaos, bloodshed and instability.

And considering that Ban Ki-Moon is the most useless person ever occupying the seat of the UNSecGen - a male equivalent of YS - the question stands what is the use of the United Nations if they cannot protect its smaller members from a klutz like Obama and his pack of "willing" henchmen.

The actions of the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others are a blatant violation of Chapter 2 of the United Nation's Charter. They show the UN the finger and Ban Ki-Moon is once more chickening out, just like during the war against Libya where Obama and his henchmen decided to "expand" and rewrite two UNSC resolutions for their purpose of "regime change", and consequently and unsurprisingly creating failed state Nr. 3.

Grow up! It's not about punishment. It's about deterrence. If the world rolls over and lets these idiots use chemical weapons on their own people, then someone else (Iran?) will come along and try to top them (nukes?).

Stop trying to use the UN charter to disguise your boner for the U.S.

Oh silly me, it is deterrence, and I thought it was regime change, like in Iraq or Libya or Kosovo. So by turning Syria into another Iraq or Libya where lawless militias murder, bomb and kidnap on a daily basis we might stop someone - we still don't know who used those chemicals - from using them again?

I have worked as "peacekeeper" in various countries recovering from vicious civil wars. And I have nothing but utter contempt for politicians or states that willfully incite unrest and civil wars in other countries to promote their own agendas and then "take French leave" when everything runs down the drain.

And seeing the result of America's recent "deterrence" attempts and still calling for one more "limited surgical strike" makes it clear who has to grow up here.

Speaking of Libya. Would you have counselled leaving the internal factions to duke it out? - which probably would have dragged out for years and left Gadhafi at the top of the heap. And Kuwait, would you be OK with Hussein/Iraq controlling that country?

[boomerangutang]

Grow up! It's not about punishment. It's about deterrence.

You have a point, but announcing in advance that the strike would be limited, would be hours rather than days, would not seek regime change and then giving Assad plenty of time to move his assetts is not going to deter anyone. It is downright assinine. What is the point?

I agree it's mainly about deterrence. I'd add it's not about regime change, ....not directly, anyway.

Syria is an adversary. As such, it's good to keep your adversary guessing what you're going to do. Keep him 'on his toes' as it were. Syria is not very big, it's terrain is sand and pebbles. It's not difficult to imagine US satellites taking note of movement of troops and equipment.

Speaking of deterrence, I think (and am sure I'm in the minority here) that the posturing in the past 2 weeks has helped somewhat in deterrence. Assad and his cronies are scared of being bombed by Uncle Sam, as they should be, and they've got a big reminder of the seriousness that the rest of the world, particularly the US and France, associate with using Sarin and other people-killing chemicals.

[Scott]

Please stay on topic. Speculation about the situation in other countries is interesting, but it will cause the thread to go off-topic.