those cruise missiles he was asking for earlier?

Last edited Wed May 8, 2013, 02:23 PM - Edit history (1)

He want's so badly to be a big, butch "War President," just like George W. Bush was. Happily, there is no way in hell he'll get to be one.

to conduct a definitive investigation. It would be better if the investigation of what happened in Syria was not done in "neighboring countries" but in Syria itself.

We need to get beyond "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof" whether those 'suspicions' lean towards the government or the opposition. If these UN people are proving to be objective, perhaps this will now happen.

We do not need to get involved. Period.

The use of NBC weapons against soldiers or civilians is illegal according to modern international law.

Biological and chemical are not.

But I'm sure in some remote file we have the authority to use them if provoked.

After all, we do still have quite a bit of that stuff left over. Can't seem to burn it very fast.

in order to give the other groups a chance to kill each other after we leave?

from people who don't want to answer my questions.

So, other than hand-wringing at an accelerated pace, what do you suggest we do about it? And how many American troops need to die because they got into the middle of someone else's fight, like we've done for so very many decades, if your answer is using our military strength?

I don't have a clearly defined answer to this situation. What I do know is that ignoring cannot be an ethical solution.

Anymore strawmans?

I've heard them all, "meme" "GOP talking points", etc. Doesn't bother me one bit.

When there is no clear right course of action, ignoring (or hand-wringing, if you prefer) is a perfectly valid way of staying out of other people's problems instead of making them your own.

While you dither and fret over the situation, without an answer, it resembles precisely what I want the US government to do militarily: Nothing.

Let diplomats make lofty speeches at the UN, Cabinet secretaries threaten or impose sanctions, and negotiators work to cajole the Russians into doing what we'd like to see rather than looking out 100% for their own interests (which they always do) hey, all that stuff is fine by me, too. And if any of that makes you feel better, that's great. But not one US soldier's life is worth anything over there. Not one.

Ahh I get it now. You think Americans are worth more than Syrians. Got it.

And we wasted American lives in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, too. Disagree?

But that probably doesn't matter to you since you think those deaths are less valuable than American deaths.

Then you'll probably agree with me that we shouldn't have been in any of those three places. That's why I think we shouldn't be involved in Syria. A lot of lives lost on both sides, with us in the middle, amounting to nothing.

Back to the strawman. Your argument is dull both in its capacity to bore and its stupidity.

Syria: Israeli airstrikes target Damascus to support terrorist rebels
http://www.newsday.com/news/world/syria-israeli-airstrikes-target-damascus-to-support-terrorist-rebels-1.5200867

Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/world/middleeast/islamist-rebels-gains-in-syria-create-dilemma-for-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

<>In Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, rebels aligned with Al Qaeda

U.S. Fears Syria Rebel Victory, for Now
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324345804578427190797966234.html

<>Administration officials fear that with Islamists tied to al Qaeda increasingly dominating the opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad


...and there's a lot more info about this if you feel inclined to search ...or continue to believe the war hawks and Israel ...and the bullshit we call the US media. Ya believed all the bullshit before Iraq didn'tcha ...so do it again now too. If Obama is wise he will stay out of this. IMO Israel thinks it would be better to have the rebels aligned with Al Qaeda win so that when Assad falls the US won't have a problem attacking the rebels after the bullshit clears and the realization of the truth comes about. Israel gets what it wants ...get rid of Assad and get the US to join in the endless war against the Syrian Al Qaeda aligned rebels ...oh and it's my bet that if the rebels win you will see an Islamic rule with Sharia law implemented. Of course that's just my wild guess.

one of which is mine. To me, this is huge. Republicans & most of the press have turned on POTUS about not doing more, not arming the rebels or inserting the US into the situation.

They've all been slamming him since the chemical weapons reports came out. He was going against even people within his Administration - going back to Hillary & Petraeus.

This report justifies all that caution and counters the massive amounts of garbage and scorn that is being thrown his way - and the huge push to get us more involved...


And the reaction here is....whatever.. Who cares...



Edit to add - it has been tweeted a lot so maybe that is a better measure of the importance people place on it. So if my little flip out was wrong & premature, well, sorry.

Obama shows he's the only "adult" in the room once again.

Are we sending weapons to Assad now?

The terrorist opposition is definitely the US's enemy. John Kerry was right when he advocated for restoration of full relations between the US and Syria. It's a better position than ever.

I mean, seriously. I'd rec this if I could.
We should really have figured out by now that arming extremist rebel groups will backfire at one point. in the time of globalization rather sooner than later at that. Oh.. and that truth is always the first victim in a war. Do. Not. Jump. To. Conclusions.

It was created to box the Obama Administration into a preset course of action leveraging the US into military intervention by increments. And, the box appears to have almost worked. Still might.

We don't know what we know. That is why it is so irresponsible to jump to conclusions and talk about sending in Cruise Missiles as Graham wants or to say that Israeli air strikes should draw America into the war as McCain wants. If Iraq teaches us anything it is that we don't go to war for the wrong reasons, beware the unintended consequences and those would be a high risk possibility right now. One of those consequence could be the destabilizing of Jordon and/or Saudi Arabia. Let's keep the powder dry.

No, I didn't think so.

As DUer Brad Friedman points out it's important to make the distinction about who the culprits are. Otherwise some might 'mistakenly' stick to pushing military action based on the 'red line' threshold.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9995

Testimony from victims of the Syrian conflict suggests rebels have used the nerve agent sarin, according to a leading United Nations investigator.

Carla del Ponte told Swiss TV there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof".

However, she said her panel had not yet seen evidence of government forces using chemical weapons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

This is a stitch up gone wrong - fortunately. It had already reminded me of the infamous "baby incubator" affair in which the Kuwaiti Ambassador's daughter, pretending to be a nurse , lured the US into the first Iraq war. She subsequently confessed that the lie served its purpose.

btw - this is now headline TV news here in the UK including the interview with Carla del Ponte where you get it live straight from her mouth.

Doubtless the opposition will say "wasn't us - must've been the other opposition"

Where and how in the hell did rebels wind up with Sarin?
Reading the BBC link listed above, making the stuff ain't exactly a walk in the park.
The rebels aren't exactly a unified front for many reasons, but it would require a lot of coordination to get the needed compounds.
The Syrian forces have been claiming for months that they have had complete control over their stockpiles. Were they being optimistic, or are they deploying Sarin and false-flagging the rebels?
Investigate more- find out who/what/where/when/and how.

BREAKING: White House says it's highly likely Assad regime, not rebels, behind any chemical weapons use.

https://twitter.com/AP/status/331461344677228544

This time, U.N. testimony is apparently no good.

A UN team of investigators into rights abuses in Syria has stressed there is no conclusive proof of either side in the conflict using chemical weapons, despite a team member's claims to the contrary.

"The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic wishes to clarify that it has not reached conclusive findings as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by any parties to the conflict," the commission said in a statement on Monday. Set up two years ago at the behest of the UN Human Rights Council, the commission has so far been unable to gain access to Syria as Damascus has ignored repeated requests for entry.

The Geneva-based inquiry into war crimes and other human rights violations is separate from an investigation of the alleged use of chemical weapons instigated by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Ban's office is still trying to negotiate entry into Syria to investigate and collect samples.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/05/201356135529534687.html

Perhaps the opposition is secretly thanking Assad for refusing to allow either group of UN investigators into the country. If they were given permission to visit the sites, the opposition could end up looking very bad indeed.