Syria's Assad says Western strike could trigger regional war

[Publicus]

So is France knowingly and deliberately misrepresenting its findings in Syria so it can buddy up to the United States and to President Obama?

Correct. You are very astute.

It appears, to me anyway, that M. Hollande is reluctant to launch an attack without a "coalition", of at least two countries, including France.

Apres vous.

And you are very wrong, and cynical.

Of course people are cynical publicus, they would be very dull if they weren't. People are finally waking up, we have seen this scenario before, in Iraq. Our leaders rigged the evidence, lied about it and got caught out. Trust is the inevitable casualty, and cynicism is the inevitable result of that loss of trust. I'm afraid Obama, Kerry, Hollande etc just repeating over and over, "It was Assad what done it, we can't show you any independent evidence, you must trust us", just doesn't cut it any more. Especially when there is plenty of evidence of the Al Qaeda rebels in Syria possessing and using sarin gas. In any crime the first thing investigators ask is,'who had a motive?' There is only one answer to that question, given the timing of the attack, the 'rebels', who were suffering reverse upon reverse and were desperate for Western intervention to change this. Yet all this is studiously ignored by Western leaders, and sadly also by most of their stooges in the MSM. It just doesn't fit the agreed agenda. Does it not strike you as odd that after nearly a year the US administration can't get to the bottom of Benghazi, ( which did murder Americans), but after only a couple of weeks Obama and Kerry know with absolute certainty that the time has come to start dropping bombs on Syrians, who have never attacked the US? I know i do!

Opinion polls in the UK show that the general public are overwhelmingly against any Western attack on Syria, at least two thirds against. Reports from France suggest, if anything, the French public are even more overwhelmingly against. I don't know about the US, but i would guess that the majority are against. People are just tired of this seemingly constant need for the West to continuously get involved in wars,in the Middle East, and they don't trust and believe the motives given. At the weekend i was invited to a dinner party at a friend's house, there were about ten guests, two of whom were retired military officers, (UK). One was quite elderly, long retired, but who was an extremely senior officer in the RAF, not far short of the highest rank achievable. The other was quite a bit younger, a retired army officer, a colonel. I had not met either of them before. Inevitably the discussion turned to the events in Syria. it was very interesting to hear their opinions. Both of them agreed that there was enormous disquiet in the armed forces about the road they were being led down in Syria and the wider Middle East, not just amongst the lower ranks who are usually at the sharp end, but amongst the majority of senior officers as well. They have seen through the political rhetoric, and they just don't trust the political motives was the general gist of it. They were genuinely puzzled, and confused as to whose interests they were expected to fight for, and especially concerned about the pedigree of the rebels on the ground in Syria who the military would be expected to be supporting.

There are military websites where i have read postings from anonymous servicemen in Afghanistan saying much the same thing, but it was quite surprising to get it from 'the horse's mouth'. Here is a picture that was apparently posted on a military site, of course i am sure you will say it is a fake, and you may be right. But you may also be wrong. But whatever, it is very hard to disagree with the sentiments expressed, and in my opinion our leaders will ignore these sentiments at their peril.

https://securecdn.disqus.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/604/4703/original.jpg

Let's look at the real issues here.

Being flippant or cynical goes nowhere constructive or positive.

And it's for good reason in the advanced democracies that the military are under absolute civilian control. President Truman fired Gen Douglas MacArthur in the midst of a war. Prez Kennedy fired political generals, and many generals and high ranking military officers were involuntarily retired during the Vietnam Conflict. It's been said the matter of war and peace is too important to be left to the generals.

Why Syrian Government Use Of Chemical Weapons Matters To US National Security

1) "It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons."

2) "It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq."

3) "It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-syrian-chemical-weapons-affect-us-2013-8#ixzz2dutYnR3I

Edited September 4, 2013 by Publicus

[Jingthing]

What people don't seem to quite get here, is that no body is talking about going to war. They are talking about air strikes for punishment of the use of chemical weapons.

It's not Iraq. It's not Libya. It's Syria.

planing to fire missiles or drop bombs on another country is planning to go to war in my book

But it isn't.

Let's get real. The Syria "civil war" is ALREADY much wider than just a civil war.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Jingthing

[Publicus]

I don't believe Assad and I don't believe Putin.

Key Parts Of The Declassified US Report On The Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria

• The Syrian regime has the types of munitions that we assess were used to carry out the attack on August 21, and has the ability to strike simultaneously in multiple locations. We have seen no indication that the opposition has carried out a large-scale, coordinated rocket and artillery attack like the one that occurred on August 21.
  • In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack.
  • Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-intelligence-report-on-last-weeks-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria-2013-8#ixzz2duwMVlVd

Edited September 4, 2013 by Publicus

[Publicus]

USA is being played like an out-of-tune violin. They are headed off at every turn.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23955655#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

Now congress can vote any old way because Putin has basically promised Russia (and by default China) will vote yes if UN is satisfied that action is needed. USA and France would be very foolish to try to swim against the tide now. UN is the place to resolve this, not Washington.

I don't believe Putin and/or Assad.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Publicus

[Publicus]

What people don't seem to quite get here, is that no body is talking about going to war. They are talking about air strikes for punishment of the use of chemical weapons.

It's not Iraq. It's not Libya. It's Syria.

This is accurate and true in contemporary times.

Was the action in Kosovo and Serbia a "war"? Was Lybia a war? Were Grenada and Panama wars? Etc.

Egypt and Arab countries attacking Israel was a war, which we haven't had since 1973.

So it's correct to say nobody's going to war.

We're talking about a limited punitive military strike. Period.

Neither Russia nor Iran are going to go to war against the United States for it.

[Jingthing]

Neither Russia nor Iran are going to go to war against the United States for it.

Definitely not Russia.

In case Iran acts up, the west might end up having to go to war with them EVENTUALLY anyway.

If anything, enforcing "red lines" REDUCES the chances of a need for a war with Iran.

[geriatrickid]

I'm just guessing of course, but it seems to me that if this thing goes down it won't be limited to one type of weapon.

Also, Russia spends very little on its military and much is antiquated. The US leaders don't seem at all worried about it. Surely they know more than I do.

Standard US military arrogance. The Russians have been investing heavily in their military since the ascent of Putin. They have billions of petro rubbles to play with courtesy of the EU who are addicted to Russian natural gas. The US miscalculated on iraq and Afghanistan too. Those "primitives" were expected to roll over and surrender. instead they handed the USA thousands of dead and maimed US personnel.

Assad will not go down without a fight and a launch of some missiles at Israel.

[geriatrickid]

What people don't seem to quite get here, is that no body is talking about going to war. They are talking about air strikes for punishment of the use of chemical weapons.

It's not Iraq. It's not Libya. It's Syria.

This is accurate and true in contemporary times.

Was the action in Kosovo and Serbia a "war"? Was Lybia a war? Were Grenada and Panama wars? Etc.

Egypt and Arab countries attacking Israel was a war, which we haven't had since 1973.

So it's correct to say nobody's going to war.

We're talking about a limited punitive military strike. Period.

Neither Russia nor Iran are going to go to war against the United States for it.

Sadly, there is no such thing as a limited punitive military strike when it comes to the Middle East. Hizbollah has thousands of "martys" available.

Just ask Israel. It thought a few well placed missiles into Lebanon would take care of Hizbollah. It miscalculated and had its arse kicked. The same will happen in Syria. Air strikes alone won't achieve much, especially if it alienates Russia and China who are needed for any settlement of the conflict.

[Publicus]

A rather unpleasant and off-topic exchange has been deleted. Please stay on the topic.

I seem to have heard on CNN this morning that John Boehmer and McCain were supporting some type of punitive action against Syria. Did I hear wrong?

From my readings Boehner, Cantor, McCain and Graham and of course Pelosi have made statements supporting obama... Conservatives are not pleased with this... But bottom line 'it ain't over 'til it's over' and that is a while away ... there is lots of grass roots resistance.

I'm on the side of the president and the leaders of our nation in this vital nonpartisan matter of the national and global security of the United States.

Enemies and allies of the United States are watching this very closely - as are the terrorists around the world.

Putin's already beginning to panic, now wanting to use the UN again for the sinister purposes of he and Assad.

Obama gains Boehner's support for Syria strike

President Barack Obama gained ground Tuesday in his drive for congressional backing of a military strike against Syria, winning critical support from House Speaker John Boehner while administration officials agreed to explicitly rule out the use of U.S. combat troops in retaliation for a suspected chemical weapons attack.

The leader of House Republicans, Boehner emerged from a meeting at the White House and said the United States has "enemies around the world that need to understand that we're not going to tolerate this type of behavior. We also have allies around the world and allies in the region who also need to know that America will be there and stand up when it's necessary."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/video/obama-gains-boehners-support-syria-221011316.html

[Publicus]

I'm just guessing of course, but it seems to me that if this thing goes down it won't be limited to one type of weapon.

Also, Russia spends very little on its military and much is antiquated. The US leaders don't seem at all worried about it. Surely they know more than I do.

Standard US military arrogance. The Russians have been investing heavily in their military since the ascent of Putin. They have billions of petro rubbles to play with courtesy of the EU who are addicted to Russian natural gas. The US miscalculated on iraq and Afghanistan too. Those "primitives" were expected to roll over and surrender. instead they handed the USA thousands of dead and maimed US personnel.

Assad will not go down without a fight and a launch of some missiles at Israel.

That's why Israel has batteries and batteries of U.S. Patriot anti-missile missiles.

They can't stop all the missiles, but stopping all but a few is effective.

[Publicus]

Yeah the agenda of that outfit is anything Obama is for, we're against.

Obama isn't infallible.

And people who are against another war are probably just like that: against another war.

Don't follow your leaders blindly.

Putin and Assad are heads of state who are brutal, cruel, vicious, wicked tyrants who mass murder at whim and will.

[jpinx]

USA and France are just not thinking this through. What's the end-game? Their best-ever hope is to take out Syrian heavy weapons and chemical delivery systems. OK -- let's assume that they do that and only kill Syrian military personnel. What then ? Assad is still in power, the rebels are splintered and will become more so when they see this action by the west -- too many chiefs with differing loyalties in the rebel side. The fighting will continue even if it's only with personal weapons, refugees will continue to be displaced and pour out into Turkey etc, More civilians will be killed in the fighting. Where's the win in all this ?????????

That was assuming a perfect strike, but if there are any co-lateral casualties amongst civilians or russian advisors --- then what?????

Meantime the politicans on capitol hill play poker instead of thinking about the people they are putting in serious harm's way.

Really -- it makes humanity look like a bunch of apes:!!!!!!!!!

Edited to add..

With apologies to the apes...

Edited September 4, 2013 by jpinx

[Credo]

What's next is that the next group of people or country that uses chemical weapons will think twice about doing it. Maybe the 2nd thought will be the one that makes them decide not to use it.

Assad has no reason to have chemical weapons.

[Loptr]

It's all part of the plan. The question is why?

Gen Wesley Clark on US plans to invade 7 countries in 5 years. The timelines have slid a few years, but nothing has changed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

[F430murci]

I'm just guessing of course, but it seems to me that if this thing goes down it won't be limited to one type of weapon.

Also, Russia spends very little on its military and much is antiquated. The US leaders don't seem at all worried about it. Surely they know more than I do.

Standard US military arrogance. The Russians have been investing heavily in their military since the ascent of Putin. They have billions of petro rubbles to play with courtesy of the EU who are addicted to Russian natural gas. The US miscalculated on iraq and Afghanistan too. Those "primitives" were expected to roll over and surrender. instead they handed the USA thousands of dead and maimed US personnel.

Assad will not go down without a fight and a launch of some missiles at Israel.

Why do you feel the need to say "standard US military arrogance" to a comment made by a poster on a Thailand forum that does not cite or quote millitary intelligence or a millitary statement? I am sure the US millitary has as good of a handle on post 1992 Russia buildup as you or Wikipedia.

As for the rest of what you said, it really depends on the strategy. US losses were minimal when intervention involved only air strikes and missiles. Assad cannot do <deleted> to US unless US has human targets on ground inside Syria. I don't remember much of a meaningful response against Israel when Israel bombed millitary positions inside Syria a few months ago.

[F430murci]

It's all part of the plan. The question is why?

Gen Wesley Clark on US plans to invade 7 countries in 5 years. The timelines have slid a few years, but nothing has changed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

Haha, how many times are you guys going to post some whack videos over and and over. I suppose you think posting this paranoid conspiracist trash over and over it will somehow be true.

Haha, we need a separate "Syria

Conspiracy Thread" thread for you guys to post your rants, theories, nutty videos and info wars quotes.

[F430murci]

USA and France are just not thinking this through. What's the end-game? Their best-ever hope is to take out Syrian heavy weapons and chemical delivery systems. OK -- let's assume that they do that and only kill Syrian military personnel. What then ? Assad is still in power, the rebels are splintered and will become more so when they see this action by the west -- too many chiefs with differing loyalties in the rebel side. The fighting will continue even if it's only with personal weapons, refugees will continue to be displaced and pour out into Turkey etc, More civilians will be killed in the fighting. Where's the win in all this ?????????

That was assuming a perfect strike, but if there are any co-lateral casualties amongst civilians or russian advisors --- then what?????

Meantime the politicans on capitol hill play poker instead of thinking about the people they are putting in serious harm's way.

Really -- it makes humanity look like a bunch of apes:!!!!!!!!!

Edited to add..

With apologies to the apes...

Relax, I am sure they have thought this through which is perhaps the primary question being posed by all congressmen to Bama during this vote. Dempsey also indicated that had a plan and strategy.

Some of the politicians that have swung over to Bama side (Boehner and Cantor for instance) would not have swung with a clear directive and strategy. Telling Assad and public of exact details of strategy is not exactly prudent.

[F430murci]

Yeah the agenda of that outfit is anything Obama is for, we're against.

Obama isn't infallible.

And people who are against another war are probably just like that: against another war.

Don't follow your leaders blindly.

Putin and Assad are heads of state who are brutal, cruel, vicious, wicked tyrants who mass murder at whim and will.

That does not matter here. Some on here will take the side of dictators intentionally committing atrocious war crimes against children and mass genocide over the US no matter what the circumstances.

[F430murci]

Putin is playing US hard. Him saying lets wait for more evidence and Russia may back just buys him time to finish shipping S-300 anti aircraft or anti-missile systems into Syria. Putin will never find conclusive evidence absent Assad publicly saying he did it.

Russia has intelligence in Syria and I would imagine that if rebels did it, we would be seeing much Russian intelligence confirming the same.

[Loptr]

It's all part of the plan. The question is why?

Gen Wesley Clark on US plans to invade 7 countries in 5 years. The timelines have slid a few years, but nothing has changed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

Haha, how many times are you guys going to post some whack videos over and and over. I suppose you think posting this paranoid conspiracist trash over and over it will somehow be true.

Haha, we need a separate "Syria

Conspiracy Thread" thread for you guys to post your rants, theories, nutty videos and info wars quotes.

So, you discount the video of General Wesley Clark? Who better to blow the whistle than someone that was in the guts of the machine during this time frame.

Anyone that discounts eye witness testimony from someone on the inside as conspiracy theory is a sheeple at best and dangerous at worst. Now back to your regularly scheduled program of puppy dogs and daisies. Nothing to see here, move along. The power elites love people like you.

[boomerangutang]

USA and France are just not thinking this through. What's the end-game? Their best-ever hope is to take out Syrian heavy weapons and chemical delivery systems. OK -- let's assume that they do that and only kill Syrian military personnel. What then ? Assad is still in power, the rebels are splintered and will become more so when they see this action by the west -- too many chiefs with differing loyalties in the rebel side. The fighting will continue even if it's only with personal weapons, refugees will continue to be displaced and pour out into Turkey etc, More civilians will be killed in the fighting. Where's the win in all this ?????????

That was assuming a perfect strike, but if there are any co-lateral casualties amongst civilians or russian advisors --- then what?????

Meantime the politicans on capitol hill play poker instead of thinking about the people they are putting in serious harm's way.

Really -- it makes humanity look like a bunch of apes:!!!!!!!!!

The US doesn't see this as a win or lose scenario. The US sees it as a needed slap down of Assad's side, if it's true that the Syrian military used Chemical weapons. The US and every other observer knows the shit will continue to hit the fan in Syria. Uncle Sam's message, with limited strikes, is don't use chemi weapons. Period. That goes for all antagonists.

[jpinx]

USA and France are just not thinking this through. What's the end-game? Their best-ever hope is to take out Syrian heavy weapons and chemical delivery systems. OK -- let's assume that they do that and only kill Syrian military personnel. What then ? Assad is still in power, the rebels are splintered and will become more so when they see this action by the west -- too many chiefs with differing loyalties in the rebel side. The fighting will continue even if it's only with personal weapons, refugees will continue to be displaced and pour out into Turkey etc, More civilians will be killed in the fighting. Where's the win in all this ?????????

That was assuming a perfect strike, but if there are any co-lateral casualties amongst civilians or russian advisors --- then what?????

Meantime the politicans on capitol hill play poker instead of thinking about the people they are putting in serious harm's way.

Really -- it makes humanity look like a bunch of apes:!!!!!!!!!

Edited to add..

With apologies to the apes...

Relax, I am sure they have thought this through which is perhaps the primary question being posed by all congressmen to Bama during this vote. Dempsey also indicated that had a plan and strategy.

Some of the politicians that have swung over to Bama side (Boehner and Cantor for instance) would not have swung with a clear directive and strategy. Telling Assad and public of exact details of strategy is not exactly prudent.

Syntax aside - Such blind belief in politicians' motives is one of the main reasons we get into these kinds of messes - too many to enumerate here since WWII. The truth never served any politician well, and the truth is that there is no end-game to any strike into Syria -- not even if it DOES have UN security council approval. Military action has never worked out well - - look at the history of failed campaigns over the last 50 years or so. Can one successful outcome be named ?

It's time to lead from the front and be strong enough to walk away from the fight.

[jpinx]

USA and France are just not thinking this through. What's the end-game? Their best-ever hope is to take out Syrian heavy weapons and chemical delivery systems. OK -- let's assume that they do that and only kill Syrian military personnel. What then ? Assad is still in power, the rebels are splintered and will become more so when they see this action by the west -- too many chiefs with differing loyalties in the rebel side. The fighting will continue even if it's only with personal weapons, refugees will continue to be displaced and pour out into Turkey etc, More civilians will be killed in the fighting. Where's the win in all this ?????????

That was assuming a perfect strike, but if there are any co-lateral casualties amongst civilians or russian advisors --- then what?????

Meantime the politicans on capitol hill play poker instead of thinking about the people they are putting in serious harm's way.

Really -- it makes humanity look like a bunch of apes:!!!!!!!!!

The US doesn't see this as a win or lose scenario. The US sees it as a needed slap down of Assad's side, if it's true that the Syrian military used Chemical weapons. The US and every other observer knows the shit will continue to hit the fan in Syria. Uncle Sam's message, with limited strikes, is don't use chemi weapons. Period. That goes for all antagonists.

Were any Americans or French killed or injured in these chemical attacks ? If not - why is USA or France involved? Since when was USA the self-appointed international vigilante? I thought we had the UN to decide who gets "slapped down".

[NeverSure]

I'm just guessing of course, but it seems to me that if this thing goes down it won't be limited to one type of weapon.

Also, Russia spends very little on its military and much is antiquated. The US leaders don't seem at all worried about it. Surely they know more than I do.

Standard US military arrogance. The Russians have been investing heavily in their military since the ascent of Putin. They have billions of petro rubbles to play with courtesy of the EU who are addicted to Russian natural gas. The US miscalculated on iraq and Afghanistan too. Those "primitives" were expected to roll over and surrender. instead they handed the USA thousands of dead and maimed US personnel.

Assad will not go down without a fight and a launch of some missiles at Israel.

Well, if this thing goes down, you'll get your look at just what Russia is. First, I don't think they have the guts or stupidity to get involved, and if they do then we'll see if you're right.

And if Syria lobs any missiles at Israel, Israel will hit back hard. It hasn't been that long since Israel bombed inside Syria with no worries.

It's not arrogance. It's just the way it is.

[Credo]

Were any Americans or French killed or injured in these chemical attacks ? If not - why is USA or France involved? Since when was USA the self-appointed international vigilante? I thought we had the UN to decide who gets "slapped down".

I don't know, do you? Are Americans or French more valuable than Syrians?

The use of chemical weapons is a crime against humanity and Assad will be punished for using them. And he can deny it all he wants, but he has them. Had he destroyed them all, then maybe he would have a leg to stand on.

[boomerangutang]

USA and France are just not thinking this through. What's the end-game? Their best-ever hope is to take out Syrian heavy weapons and chemical delivery systems. OK -- let's assume that they do that and only kill Syrian military personnel. What then ? Assad is still in power, the rebels are splintered and will become more so when they see this action by the west -- too many chiefs with differing loyalties in the rebel side. The fighting will continue even if it's only with personal weapons, refugees will continue to be displaced and pour out into Turkey etc, More civilians will be killed in the fighting. Where's the win in all this ?????????

That was assuming a perfect strike, but if there are any co-lateral casualties amongst civilians or russian advisors --- then what?????

Meantime the politicans on capitol hill play poker instead of thinking about the people they are putting in serious harm's way.

Really -- it makes humanity look like a bunch of apes:!!!!!!!!!

The US doesn't see this as a win or lose scenario. The US sees it as a needed slap down of Assad's side, if it's true that the Syrian military used Chemical weapons. The US and every other observer knows the shit will continue to hit the fan in Syria. Uncle Sam's message, with limited strikes, is don't use chemi weapons. Period. That goes for all antagonists.

Were any Americans or French killed or injured in these chemical attacks ? If not - why is USA or France involved? Since when was USA the self-appointed international vigilante? I thought we had the UN to decide who gets "slapped down".

One word; Principle. The US is known for assisting all sorts of people in nearly every region of the world - with issues that don't directly affect Americans. Having the world's strongest military is just part of the equation. Americans are also the greatest philanthropists of any nationality, by far. Mistakes have been made, for sure, but their overall sentiments are usually sincere - in genuinely wanting to assist people in need, regardless of color, race, religion. Contrast this with the world's most populace nation, and the #2 strongest economy: Name one altruistic principle (that goes beyond Chinese borders) or one int'l do-good organization which eminates from China. Different, eh?

[jpinx]

I'm just guessing of course, but it seems to me that if this thing goes down it won't be limited to one type of weapon.

Also, Russia spends very little on its military and much is antiquated. The US leaders don't seem at all worried about it. Surely they know more than I do.

Standard US military arrogance. The Russians have been investing heavily in their military since the ascent of Putin. They have billions of petro rubbles to play with courtesy of the EU who are addicted to Russian natural gas. The US miscalculated on iraq and Afghanistan too. Those "primitives" were expected to roll over and surrender. instead they handed the USA thousands of dead and maimed US personnel.

Assad will not go down without a fight and a launch of some missiles at Israel.

Well, if this thing goes down, you'll get your look at just what Russia is. First, I don't think they have the guts or stupidity to get involved, and if they do then we'll see if you're right.

And if Syria lobs any missiles at Israel, Israel will hit back hard. It hasn't been that long since Israel bombed inside Syria with no worries.

It's not arrogance. It's just the way it is.

Frankly - I don't believe that analysis. France has nuclear capability and is no slouch militarily, but doesn't get a mention, but Japan does. It also depends on how the expenditure is measured. A third world country that builds it's own kit can get a lot more bang for their buck.

[Exsexyman]

USA is being played like an out-of-tune violin. They are headed off at every turn.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23955655#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

Now congress can vote any old way because Putin has basically promised Russia (and by default China) will vote yes if UN is satisfied that action is needed. USA and France would be very foolish to try to swim against the tide now. UN is the place to resolve this, not Washington.

I don't believe Putin and/or Assad.

What you do or don't believe is irrelevant though, the onus is on the accuser to provide proof of guilt, not the other way round. And it must be absolute proof if you are going to launch missiles at them. Just saying, 'we assess this, and we assess that' is not proof. Kerry's speech yesterday has been condemned and mocked, he kept contradicting himself, first saying that ground troops could get involved under certain circumstances, and then having to backtrack five times saying he had not meant to imply that "boots on the ground' was something that would be considered! So in his world ground troops getting involved doesn't mean 'boots on the ground'! Righto! He waffled on, with a breathtaking load of nonsense about the consensus for the last hundred years against the use of chemical weapons, completely ignoring the fact that recently declassified CIA files disclose the fact that Saddam Hussain gassed up to 50,000 Iranians in the 1980s with the USA's knowledge and active assistance. Does he really think that people don't notice these things?

In your reply to my post earlier you made no attempt to address any of the points i made, very telling. This Syrian adventure is clearly about regime change and always has been, although i am not a big fan of John Bolton at least he tells it like it is. The current administration should man up and admit it, and stop trying to insult peoples intelligence by selling it as some kind of humanitarian gesture. Yesterday Obama announced that the first batch of CIA trained 'rebels' had left their training camp in Jordan, and were on the ground in Syria. It quite clearly takes months to select and train these jihadists, which gives the lie to the flat denials for months from both Jordan and The US that these camps even existed. Indeed, i have been called a conspiracy theorist on this forum for saying just that! I don't believe this is the 'first batch' either, there is plenty of evidence that these camps have been in place for a very long time. We are playing a very dangerous and reckless game arming and training these people, they are no friends of ours. Many of them are Jihadists affiliated to Al Qaeda, from all over the world including European 'citizens', who believe they are fighting a holy war in Syria. But their agenda is not just the Middle East, they have a world wide agenda as we in the West know to our cost. Do our leaders learn nothing?

Yesterday it was announced with a great fanfare that a Syrian doctor, a forensic medicine expert had defected to the rebels, bringing with him "evidence" of Assad's role in the gas attack, and there would be a press conference with him later, a press conference that subsequently didn't take place. Lo and behold, today it emerges that Dr Shahrour was kidnapped over two weeks ago by 'rebels', (maybe it was the same rebels who kidnapped the two christian bishops back in April and are still missing despite appeals from The pope), four days before the recent chemical attack. Amazingly he was carrying evidence of Assad's involvement in the attack with him when he was kidnapped. What an amazing stroke of good fortune!! The rebels are saying that the press conference will take place soon. Perhaps they are waiting for his bruises to disappear, and for him to be supplied with the evidence and coached as to what to say! The rebels and their paymasters, ie, the ones who are so impatient to start bombing are clearly getting desperate.

One of the next to testify at the Senate hearing is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey. That could be interesting given his views on the Syrian civil war. But will they take any notice of his opinions? I doubt it, after all, what would he know!

http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-rebels-won-t-advance-u-s--interests--joint-chiefs-chairman-135743341.html

For anyone who doubts that regime change doesn't come into the equation.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/03/obama-strategy-assad-republicans-syria

This last link is not strictly on topic, but it does serve as a warning as to what will happen in Syria if the rebels and their supporters get their way and take over. 'Those who ignore history, in this case very recent history, are doomed to repeat it'. I think the link mis very relevant to this topic, but if the mods disagree, of course feel free to delete it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-report-we-all-thought-libya-had-moved-on--it-has-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-8797041.html

[F430murci]

It's all part of the plan. The question is why?

Gen Wesley Clark on US plans to invade 7 countries in 5 years. The timelines have slid a few years, but nothing has changed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

Haha, how many times are you guys going to post some whack videos over and and over. I suppose you think posting this paranoid conspiracist trash over and over it will somehow be true.

Haha, we need a separate "Syria

Conspiracy Thread" thread for you guys to post your rants, theories, nutty videos and info wars quotes.

So, you discount the video of General Wesley Clark? Who better to blow the whistle than someone that was in the guts of the machine during this time frame.

Anyone that discounts eye witness testimony from someone on the inside as conspiracy theory is a sheeple at best and dangerous at worst. Now back to your regularly scheduled program of puppy dogs and daisies. Nothing to see here, move along. The power elites love people like you.

Its the context and editing. I don't disagree there was a proposal or strategy for such a knee jerk reaction immediately after 911. He is talking about discussions that occurred within a week or two after WTC. This alleged 5 year war plan from 2001 was nothing more than perhaps one of many strategies proposed and was ultimately rejected. Many strategies and proposals have over years have been proffered and rejected.

The disconnect is that what Clark discussed in that short clip somehow illustrates that what is going on right NOW is part of this ongoing master plan that has been in place since 2001. That is not what Clark is saying.

[NeverSure]

USA and France are just not thinking this through. What's the end-game? Their best-ever hope is to take out Syrian heavy weapons and chemical delivery systems. OK -- let's assume that they do that and only kill Syrian military personnel. What then ? Assad is still in power, the rebels are splintered and will become more so when they see this action by the west -- too many chiefs with differing loyalties in the rebel side. The fighting will continue even if it's only with personal weapons, refugees will continue to be displaced and pour out into Turkey etc, More civilians will be killed in the fighting. Where's the win in all this ?????????

That was assuming a perfect strike, but if there are any co-lateral casualties amongst civilians or russian advisors --- then what?????

Meantime the politicans on capitol hill play poker instead of thinking about the people they are putting in serious harm's way.

Really -- it makes humanity look like a bunch of apes:!!!!!!!!!

The US doesn't see this as a win or lose scenario. The US sees it as a needed slap down of Assad's side, if it's true that the Syrian military used Chemical weapons. The US and every other observer knows the shit will continue to hit the fan in Syria. Uncle Sam's message, with limited strikes, is don't use chemi weapons. Period. That goes for all antagonists.

Were any Americans or French killed or injured in these chemical attacks ? If not - why is USA or France involved? Since when was USA the self-appointed international vigilante? I thought we had the UN to decide who gets "slapped down".

The UN sucks. None of its resolutions are binding on anyone. 5 countries on the Security Council have veto power. That includes the US, Russia and China. Are we ever going to get agreement among those three?

And SINCE WHEN did the US give up its sovereignty to anyone, much less the UN?

The UN is a joke. Only those who don't understand how things work keep bringing up the f'n UN.