Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 08:08 PM Aug 2013

One step closer to war: U.S. wins Arab League backing as plans emerge for strike against Syria

CAIRO -- The Arab League on Tuesday declared the Syrian regime “fully responsible” for an alleged chemical weapons attack, giving the Obama administration symbolic regional cover to proceed with a punitive offensive that could begin within days.

Two U.S. defense officials, speaking on condition of anonymity so as to discuss sensitive military plans, told McClatchy that military commanders were ready to execute a sea-based strike but were awaiting orders from the White House. The officials said the attack would be carried out exclusively by the four destroyers currently based in the eastern Mediterranean and would not include airstrikes to supplement the expected missile barrage.

U.S. officials emphasized that any military action would be punishment for the Syrian government’s apparent use of chemical weapons, and not an operation to remove President Bashar Assad. That distinction is important to the Obama administration as it searches for a response that deters Assad from chemical warfare but doesn’t drag the United States into a devastating conflict that’s already spilling across borders and inflaming the Middle East.

Vice President Joe Biden told the American Legion National Convention in Houston that there was “no doubt” the Assad regime was responsible for the “heinous use of chemical weapons.”

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/27/3589790/us-wins-arab-league-backing-as.html

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
One step closer to war: U.S. wins Arab League backing as plans emerge for strike against Syria (Original Post) Cali_Democrat Aug 2013 OP
Arab League should take care of it's own backyard. KittyWampus Aug 2013 #1
Why, when we're so eager to do it for them? Scootaloo Aug 2013 #2
What if Russia helped sink one of these US ships? David__77 Aug 2013 #3
You think the US wouldn't attack Russian ships if Russia attacked a US ship? Cali_Democrat Aug 2013 #5
No I actually do not. David__77 Aug 2013 #6
I agree ..... oldhippie Aug 2013 #7
I DO want to see a stare down. David__77 Aug 2013 #9
Then Russia would also make the same calculation, right? Cali_Democrat Aug 2013 #8
That was the old logic of MAD. David__77 Aug 2013 #10
It's got little to lose? I don't think Russia wants millions of their citizens incinerated Cali_Democrat Aug 2013 #12
OK we disagree. David__77 Aug 2013 #14
Are you ROOTING for RUSSIA to BLOW UP OUR SHIPS?????? DevonRex Aug 2013 #17
So is the US going to be fighting alongside al Qaeda? leftstreet Aug 2013 #4
AQ is resurgent in Iraq, especially in the northern part of the country Harmony Blue Aug 2013 #11
So who are the rent-a-rebels in Syria? leftstreet Aug 2013 #13
They are al Qaeda, of course. David__77 Aug 2013 #15
Al Nursa front which is loosely affiliated with AQ Harmony Blue Aug 2013 #16

David__77

(23,548 posts)
3. What if Russia helped sink one of these US ships?
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 08:17 PM
Aug 2013

There would be no retaliation against Russia, I assure you. Everyone thinks that the US can do whatever it wants with no body count. One of these days, that fallacy will be clearly and totally destroyed.

I ask those supporting aggression against Syria: how many dead Americans is it worth?

David__77

(23,548 posts)
6. No I actually do not.
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 08:25 PM
Aug 2013

Especially if it was cloaked as a Syrian attack. Syria actually has pretty good anti-ship capabilities. They'd be stupid not to preemptively use them.

I think the warmongers in the US want war on the cheap. Few US deaths. Russia has thousands of nukes and other means to make any conflict have an unacceptably high cost. It could at least wreck the economy. So, no, I don't think they would retaliate.

 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
7. I agree .....
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 08:28 PM
Aug 2013

Firing a shot at Russians would be a whole new ballgame, and President Obama is not going to do it.

I don't want to see a stare down between him and Putin.

David__77

(23,548 posts)
9. I DO want to see a stare down.
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 08:31 PM
Aug 2013

Because I know that Obama would back down. He know that US interests do not involve support these terrorists in Syria. But he's a captive of these evil forces in DC, including, apparently, his own secretary of state (and former one). He needs to stand strong and resist the urge to yet another, illegal war with no approval by the UN even.

 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
8. Then Russia would also make the same calculation, right?
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 08:30 PM
Aug 2013

The US also has thousands of nukes.

Your assertion that Russia can attack US ships, but the US can't attack Russian ships doesn't make much sense to me.

David__77

(23,548 posts)
10. That was the old logic of MAD.
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 08:32 PM
Aug 2013

But the US acts like mutually assured destruction doesn't exist any more. To strongly remind US elite policy makers that it DOES exist would change their calculations about attacking this or that country, thinking they can do it on the cheap. The US already fucks over Russia geostrategically, it's got little to lose.

 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
12. It's got little to lose? I don't think Russia wants millions of their citizens incinerated
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 08:35 PM
Aug 2013

I really don't think Russia would directly attack a US Navy ship. It wouldn't make sense for them to do that.

David__77

(23,548 posts)
14. OK we disagree.
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 08:38 PM
Aug 2013

I don't think the US would escalate, especially if Russia made it look like a Syrian attack. I could be wrong, but I don't see it. I think Obama would turn tail like Reagan in Lebanon in 83. The people of this country don't want Americans dying for al Qaeda, and that's how it would go down in history. But thankfully, this is conjectural, and Obama doesn't have to do anything at all, except heed the wishes of the people who elected him.

leftstreet

(36,117 posts)
4. So is the US going to be fighting alongside al Qaeda?
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 08:19 PM
Aug 2013

This is so fucking confusing

Bomb al Qaeda in Yemen and Pakistan, ally with them in Syria?

Harmony Blue

(3,978 posts)
11. AQ is resurgent in Iraq, especially in the northern part of the country
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 08:34 PM
Aug 2013

which is Kurdish controlled. That is why the Iraqi Kurds have decided to forge an uneasy truce and alliance with the Iraqi government to fight AQ in Iraq.

David__77

(23,548 posts)
15. They are al Qaeda, of course.
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 08:39 PM
Aug 2013

If you took out AQ, the "Syrian Civil War" would soon be over, within a year or so anyway.

Harmony Blue

(3,978 posts)
16. Al Nursa front which is loosely affiliated with AQ
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 08:41 PM
Aug 2013

AQ themselves. Chechnyan and other foreign religious fundamentalists also loosely affiliate with AQ but have similar goals of establishing an Islamic state. FSA, and then the rebels trained and backed by U.S. British and French intelligence from Jordan (they entered Syria about two weeks ago).

Probably many more that I missed.

Hezbollah obviously is fighting on the side of Syria but they have peeved off the Lebanese Christians and Hamas in Lebanon.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»One step closer to war: U...