I doubt this is going to stop at missiles and drone attacks.

I mean that might have played into it.

But what do I know?

Bryant

Or, as the kids say, definately.

Ain't dat big a deel. Rite!

Do you believe it is just to punish Assad?

I don't buy that because the risks of the strike are far too great.

None of the goals put forward match the means requested. That is what make me doubt the official reason.

I don't think there's some sort of vast conspiracy to uncover. I think the main thing is that Obama and his administration feel that Assad has crossed a line and that Syria is a destabilizing force in the region. I think Obama is sincere when he talks about the red line being something that the international community agreed on and that he can't stand back and let that go.

That said, I think that without UN or Regional support, bombing Syria would be a mistake as I don't see it accomplishing much, if anything. And it will end up killing civilians to no real end.

In other words, I think Obama is sincere but wrong.

Bryant

who use them. Answering wrong with wrong is Obama's own idea, not the mutual decision of the treaty in any way, shape or form. Killing more innocent people is NOT what the world agrees should be done when innocents are killed with gas.
Not to mention Obama's deep hypocrisy due to Reagan's inaction when Iraq used gas on the Kurds, which Obama has never seen fit to mention although he has engaged in great praise of Ronald Reagan and his policies. Hard to buy that Obama really cares about chemical weapons when he adores Reagan who helped Saddam gas folks. When asked about Reagan, Obama has always praised him, and not once did he mention that he felt Reagan had been immoral or wrong to send Rumsfeld to congratulate Saddam 4 months after he gassed far more people than Syria has.
Reagan was 'transformative' and better than Clinton according to Obama, while to me Reagan has always been the murderous gas merchant who was silent in the face of AIDS.

”Reagan has always been the murderous gas merchant who was silent in the face of AIDS.”

TYY

There are more than a few in other places who have brutalized, murdered, and tortured their own citizens.

The Bush administration was happy to find that most Americans think all countries in the Middle East are basically the same country. And that their leaders and key players are basically the same person. So selling Saddam = Osama, was easy.

In reality, these countries, and their leaders are very different.

Iran != Libya != Egypt != Syria != (add your favorite here)

Efforts to equate them, and arguments that we should engage them all in the same manner (whatever one's preferred manner of engagement happens to be), are effective only as long as the target audience (the American people, other people on anonymous internet forums) knows little to nothing about these countries ... which is usually a pretty good assumption.

The post I responded to said that the President was acting out of concern for the Syrian citizens that were harmed by Assad, and that this was his reason for what he is doing and what he is proposing now.

Fair enough, but then why Assad and not other dictators who have or continue to brutalize their people.

... you are also treating all other aspects (and differences) as "equal".

The President's concern for the Syrian citizens isn't his only concern. Go back in listen to all of his statements on this topic and he doesn't just say "I'm concerned about the Syrian people, the end."

How likely is the Assad regime to provide aid to those who would attack Western allies? How likely are the other dictators you refer to (but do not name)? How many of those other unnamed dictators are using Chemical weapons?
How many of these dictators have an active rebellion underway?

Why did we engage in Kosovo? What set of conditions ultimately lead us to enter there?

And after going through all of those types of issues ... what form should the engagement take? Limited strikes? Seal team, in and out? Boots on the ground?

There isn't an easy answer because the reality is far more complex than the single question you asked. And the item in that question (killing civilians) is not, in and of itself, sufficient.

If being an evil dictator who kills his civilians was always sufficient, all by itself ... we'd be bombing North Korea already. But we're not.

Why ... because ... all the countries I mentioned != North Korea either.

The poster I responded to gave that as their "why". I didn't. They said that the "why" was because Assad burned his own citizens to death. Fair enough, if that's their rationalization then o.k. But then the other question needs to be answered.

If the person I responded to have given all of the other "why"'s then I would have asked the follow up question.

gaffes yourself. Afghanistan not only has an 'h' but it is located in Central Asia, not the Middle East. Libya, also on your list, is a North African country, not located in the Middle East.
But yeah, those other Americans are all confused.....

In addition to all that incorrect information, your post was not responsive to the question asked of you.

As for the American people's knowledge of the ME ... spare me.

The entire reason that Bush was able to sell the Iraq war to the American People, was because the American people, by and large, were unable to differentiate between Iraq and Afghanistan, Saddam and Osama.

That entire region, including Northern Africa, throw in the Baltic states, and most of Asia for that matter, is a geographic blob to most Americans.

Its just a fact. A fact that the Bush administration exploited. Its a key reason that support for invading Iraq was so high.

btw ... I did answer the question. The situation with Assad is different from other dictators because Syria is a different country, with an entirely different set of internal and geopolitical realities. Any attempt to boil it all down to ANY single question, is misguided.

That's an answer.

Now having said all that ... please feel free to correct my spelling some more. I enjoy your deep knowledge on that subject.

when Saddam, our "friend" at the time, did exactly the same thing to the Kurds with chemicals WE supplied him.

That can't be the reason. Because, obviously, President Obama and his Administration have a hidden agenda just like Bush and his neocon buddies did. I mean, they just have to. Somebody gassing their own people in violation of international norms and conventions can never be the ONLY reason.


In all seriousness though, it may not be a *good enough* reason to do anything militarily about it but it is still a matter of legitimate concern to the rest of the world IMHO.

They're the ones sponsoring the "rebels". And were their servants so that's where we fit in.

No one wants Europeans to pay less for their natural gas.

and so does our government. The US has had it's lips firmly planted on Saudi ass since Reagan.

... when the War Pigs were banging the the war drums to "democratize" Iraq.

No more wars of choice. Period.

Obviously

concerning potential chemical weapons use. Obama then gave a red line on their use to appease the special interests. Unfortunately, this strategy is good way to promote war.

Now that Syria has allegedly used them, Obama feels he must do something considering his red-line has allegedly been crossed.

in a war-torn, crippled country, who's going to stand up to stronger countries using them or other WMD's (Iran)? It would be nice if he had international assistance--but the UN is useless and no one else wants to do anything beyond condemning the attacks. Assad will get away with it.

of Reagan's cooperation with Saddam's gassing of the Kurds and Iranians, seems affected and situational rather than authentic and ethical.

It's a personal thing between Obama and Putin.

My suspicions -- 1) the pipeline(s) for natural gas and oil

http://gulfnews.com/in-focus/syria/gas-pipeline-sabotaged-in-syria-1.1226953

Lots of pipeline info here:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-04/guest-post-us-going-war-syria-over-natural-gas-pipeline

2) The balance of power in the region (Russia and China gaining ground and ports)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/syria-china-russia-opposing-military-strikes

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/meast/syria-iran-china-russia-supporters/

Assad has been non-aggressive toward Israel so for the Israelis to back this war seems like a gamble that I don't understand.

... that (Russia and China gain ground and ports) is hinting at the problem. And that problem is that the oil producing and some consuming countries of the ME and Europe are tired of the dollar. They do not want to pay for or receive payment for their oil in dollars any more.

This "reserve currency" status the US currently has in in peril. If we lose this status it will be a big blow economically to the US. Some say that the Saddams announcement of wanting to trade oil for another currency was his actual undoing.

I suspect this or something like it is the real reason. The ideas that a thousand people being killed brutally, chemically or not, is some sort of huge breaking point is laughable. The idea that killing someone with nerve gas is somehow any different than blowing their leg off and letting them bleed out, or any number of other horrible conventional-warfare ways of dying are "better" is also laughable.

I'm not claiming to know the real reason, I'm just damned sure that our lying-ass government is not going to tell us what it is. Because while if they did they would claim it was for the benefit of all Americans, I'm pretty sure its for the benefit of the MIC and banksters.

but would be an unpalatable reason on which to sell this war. If the dollar falls significantly, as it would if not tied to the price of oil, the effects would be major. Akin to this is that ME countries who are paid in dollars are much more inclined to spend them on American military hardware than if they were paid in rubles or euros.

I see the current push as marketing. Kerry is tasked with selling this war and if a major ad agency was involved they would use a customer value model (CVM). CVMs are used to focus on what the customer THINKS they are paying for, or what they are most willing to pay for. For example in the battle between Verizon and other carriers, Verizon focuses on their better coverage than other carriers. Verizon is more expensive than other carriers and successful in maintaining a premium position, so customers believe that better coverage is what they are paying the extra for. What they are ACTUALLY paying for is a whole other equation and far less important to the sale.

Any CVM for selling wars to the American public would probably rank the things that Americans are willing to pay for and to support -- their own person security might rank #1, then less personal, moral benefits like saving children from gas attacks, AND punishing bad people, When Kerry says the "case is building" I take that to mean that they are still trying to find more reasons which Americans will want to believe in. The chemical weapons reason only got them to 9% initially and now maybe 27% or so.

Going forward I would expect them to play more to the personal security angle because self interest ranks higher on the CVM than the "this is a humanitarian war" pitch.

... might be willing to send their sons and daughters to war over principles, not so much for money for the already rich.

The fact is, petroleum is a dying paradigm no matter how you slice it. If we are going to spend lives and treasure securing the last drops of it, some more sane members of the country would prefer to spend those lives and treasure in finding a way to not need it.

Not indiscriminate Syrians.

but rhetoric based on agenda.

Syria's on the list.

Feel they have to act. If there was an underlying motive they could have gone in way before now.

He talked tough, and now he feels he has to back it up or else people won't take his threats seriously anymore.

That's the only reason that makes any sense.

I really don't buy the "warmonger" "doing it for his corporate masters" stuff.

unless one believes it really SHOULD be tolerated. Maybe that's really where he stands, and wasn't just shooting off his mouth--maybe he meant it? The international community and UN should be reacting, since there are prohibitions against such weapons, but for various reasons they can't or won't.

assistance to Saddam in the use of gas on Iran and on the Kurds. Reagan gave Saddam components and target coordinates knowing that gas was being used and Rumsfeld was in Iraq shaking Saddam's hand 4 months later. But Obama has never offered a word of criticism of that chemical weapons mega attack nor of Regan's support of it and in fact he has lavishly praised Reagan when asked about him. Better than Clinton, very transformational. Not a word about presiding over chemical weapons use.

Now, we must either use U.S. military might to assist the Syrian rebels, some of whom are al Qaeda and many of whom are committing atrocities of their own, or else we must back down and face embarrassment and loss of credibility on the world stage.

Neither option is a good one.

There is something to be said for speaking softly and carrying a big stick. It's much better than speaking loudly and carrying a big stick, because there are times that it isn't in your best interests to use the stick at all. (Even if someone richly deserves a whacking.)

then that's fine, you aren't paid the big bucks to make such judgments and worry about such things--but understand that perhaps Obama and others in the administration expected they might have to respond to a chem attack by Assad, and were probably counting on a coalition, NATO, or UNSC to stand up and help in such an instance. I think they miscalculated world response. I think everybody wants to shrug it off and let Putin/Assad win this round.

I would not have made the miscalculations you describe the Administration as having made. I would also have avoided any "red line" statement that might force my hand should it come to pass.

I'm very sympathetic to the Syrian people, but they will only be helped by allowing this war to end. And I suspect there are only two ways it can end:

1. American boots on the ground in a bloody conflict every bit as bad as Iraq, or

2. Assad (or one of his generals) consolidates power and wipes out the rebels.

I do not think the rebels are a sufficient or cohesive enough force to take the country without outside help.

I agree with Dawg; this has more to do with Obama's sense that his credibility and the credibility of the U.S. than any other single reason.

If everything is a lie to you, how will you ever recognize the truth?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

I wouldn't say "never", as that would imply a conspiracy theory behind every action.

Sometimes the best way to know why someone does something is to listen when he/she says why they are doing it. Occam's razor should at least be considered.

...that's why all liberals are opposing military action and all conservatives are supporting it.

Right?

or something will be done by an International court, before it becomes commonplace to attack with killer gas everywhere in the world.

Cause you can bet there are plenty of gunrunner sales businesses who are more than willing to supply the weapons to anyone with cash.

control our actions in ME.

To the extent that PNAC is lobbying for this: Seven Countries in Five Years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

Say hello to $5-$6/gallon gas, folks!

The Koch brothers are already creaming themselves.

which creates trading opportunities.

What the Saudis want, the Saudis get. Same for AIPAC and Israel.

O opened his piehole and now we have to prove we can fuck like champs.

With that said, there are certainly other actors who are using this golden opportunity to push their various agendas: AIPAC, MIC, neocons, etc. They are all looking at this as their big chance.

1991: Paul Wolfowitz, then Undersecretary of Defense, tells US Army General Wesley Clark that the US has 5-10 years to “clean up those old Soviet client regimes, Syria, Iran, Iraq, before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.” Fora.TV: Wesley Clark at the Commonwealth Club of California, October 3, 2007.

2001: A classified plot is revealed to US Army General Wesley Clark that the US plans to attack and destroy the governments of 7 nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. Fora.TV: Wesley Clark at the Commonwealth Club of California, October 3, 2007.

2002: US Under Secretary of State John Bolton declares Syria a member of the “Axis of Evil” and warned that “the US would take action.” BBC: “US Expands ‘Axis of Evil’” May 6, 2002.

2005: US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy organizes and implements the “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon directly aimed at undermining Syrian-Iranian influence in Lebanon in favor of Western-backed proxies, most notably Saad Hariri’s political faction. Counterpunch: “Faking the Case Against Syria,” by Trish Schuh November 19-20, 2005.

2005: Ziad Abdel Nour, an associate of Bush Administration advisers, policy makers, and media including Neo-Conservatives Paula Dobriansky, James Woolsey, Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, Joseph Farah (World Net Daily), Clifford May, and Daniel Nassif of US State Department-funded Al Hurra and Radio Sawa, admits: “Both the Syrian and Lebanese regimes will be changed- whether they like it or not- whether it’s going to be a military coup or something else… and we are working on it. We know already exactly who’s going to be the replacements. We’re working on it with the Bush administration.” Counterpunch: “Faking the Case Against Syria,” by Trish Schuh November 19-20, 2005.

2006: Israel attempts, and fails, to destroy Hezbollah in Lebanon after a prolonged aerial bombard that resulted in thousands of civilian deaths. CNN: “UN: Hezbollah and Israel agree on Monday cease-fire,” August 13, 2006.

2007: Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker reveals that US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Hariri in Lebanon as well as the Syrian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood were assembling, arming, training, and heavily funding a sectarian extremists front, many of whom had direct ties to Al Qaeda, to unleash in both Lebanon and Syria. The goal was to create and exploit a sectarian divide between Sunni and Shi’ia Muslims. Hersh interviewed intelligence officers who expressed concerns over the “cataclysmic conflict” that would result, and the need to protect ethnic minorities from sectarian atrocities. The report indicated that extremists would be logistically staged in northern Lebanon where they would be able to cross back and forth into Syria. New Yorker: “The Redirection,” by Seymour Hersh, March 5, 2007.

2008: The US State Department begins training, funding, networking, and equipping “activists” through its “Alliance for Youth Movements” where the future protest leaders of the “Arab Spring,” including Egypt’s “April 6 Movement” were brought to New York, London, and Mexico, before being trained by US-funded CANVAS in Serbia, and then returning home to begin preparations for 2011. Land Destroyer: “2011 – Year of the Dupe,” December 24, 2011.

2009: The Brookings Institution published a report titled, “Which Path to Persia?” (.pdf), which admits that the Bush Administration “evicted” Syria from Lebanon without building up a strong Lebanese government to replace it (p. 34), that Israel struck a “nascent” Syrian nuclear program, and states the importance of neutralizing Syrian influence before any attack on Iran can be carried out (p. 109). The report then goes on to describe in detail the use of listed terrorist organizations against the government of Iran, in particular the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) (p. 126) and Baluch insurgents in Pakistan (p.132). Brookings Institution: “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran,” June 2009.

2009-2010: In an April 2011 AFP report, Michael Posner, the assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Labor, admitted that the “US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments.” The report went on to admit that the US (emphasis added) “organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there.” Posner would add, “They went back and there’s a ripple effect.” AFP: “US Trains Activists to Evade Security Forces,” April 8, 2011.

2011: Posner’s US trained, funded, and equipped activists return to their respective countries across the Arab World to begin their “ripple effect.” Protests, vandalism , and arson sweep across Syria and “rooftop snipers” begin attacking both protesters and Syrian security forces, just as Western-backed movements were documented doing in Bangkok, Thailand one year earlier. With a similar gambit already unfolding in Libya, US senators begin threatening Syria with long planned and sought after military intervention. Land Destroyer: “Syria: Intervention Inevitable,” April 29, 2011.



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aGiuDb4RDv4/T2dzeUqkiUI/AAAAAAAABSE/XOg8IB6zpE8/s1600/BrookingsSyriaRegimeChange.tif

http://www.globalresearch.ca/save-syria-demand-an-end-to-us-nato-supported-sectarian-terrorists/31204

The timing was awfully convenient. Syria has been an issue for years, but it didn't become THE issue until Washington needed a distraction.