The Syrian Invasion

[Coito ergo sum]

So, where is the proof? http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/08/ ... ely-wrong/

Anyone interested?

I doubt anything is going to happen until the UN team comes back with some confirmation. A strike is going to be unpopular enough, but it'll be a public relations disaster if the UN inspection report is iffy.

But regardless of what the report says, China and (especially) Russia would still veto any military action.

And, when a country on the security council, say....France...vetoes military action, then isn't it improper to conduct that action, since UN auspices have not been granted? Seems I heard that somewhere once....

[Coito ergo sum]

"I opposed American involvement in Libya because I did not believe vital U.S. interests were threatened and I oppose any involvement in Syria for the same reason. If President Obama wants to commit military forces in the Syrian civil war he must make the case to the American people, win their broad support and secure a vote approving any involvement from the United States Congress. Absent an imminent threat to American interests I believe unilateral action without the approval of Congress would not be consistent with the requirements of our Constitution and I will oppose any such action.”

US Congresswoman Candace Miller http://macomb.patch.com/groups/politics ... reat-to-us

I notice they omitted her political party. Since she's saying something politically correct, can I conclude she's Republican?

Yes, of course.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, where is the proof? http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/08/ ... ely-wrong/

Anyone interested?

I doubt anything is going to happen until the UN team comes back with some confirmation. A strike is going to be unpopular enough, but it'll be a public relations disaster if the UN inspection report is iffy.

But regardless of what the report says, China and (especially) Russia would still veto any military action.

It won't be a UN-sponsored action. But the US/UK/France/whomever else is going to want UN-produced verification that chemical weapons were used.

.

A "Coalition".... as 'twere.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't even particularly believe the moral outrage. The US et al were happy for Saddam to gas Iranians back in the 80's, and both the US and Israel have used white phosphorous recently, which is akin, if not worse, to gassing people. I just figure there's got to be a political motive. Unless this really is a rare case of the dog wagging the tail and the body politic of the US is actually outraged and want something done. Although, I think I recall seeing a poll saying that the vast majority of US citizens don't want to go to "war" with Syria. Perhaps that's open to interpretation..

The use of white phosphorus against military targets is not barred by international law. The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons bans the use of incendiary weapons against civilians (it's redundant, of course, because the Geneva Conventions already ban that). But, the use of incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus, against military targets is legal. White phosphorus shells were used by the military in the Libyan action, so since Obama is o.k. with it, it must be fine. At least, it was fine then because they likely used it thoughtfully, carefully and responsibly, as they do all things.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think things are rarely as clear as most people (and media reporting) make them out to be. Assad's regime uses chemical weapons, so they face retaliation from an outraged world... okay, that's the simple narrative, but one should always ask: what's really going on here? Yes, Obama has expressly ruled out a goal of regime change, as he rightly doesn't want to get the US involved in another of of those messes, but with any military involvement there are secondary geopolitical effects to consider. What it might mean to Iran, to Israel, to Russia, to Turkey, etc... Moral outrage at the use of chemical weapons is not the end-all-be-all of this scenario.

Plus, any intervention should hopefully have the effect of ending further atrocities. It's not clear yet how this goal can be guaranteed.

Shouldn't we be asking why the West isn't intervening in various other humanitarian crises around the world.....? I mean, if we're the world's policemen, should we be invading various African nations that are attacking their own people too?

Posted before, but worth another laugh --

[Coito ergo sum]

It can't... it's putting out a fire with gasoline...

[Coito ergo sum]

Stakes ratchet up one. Iran plays a card and it's a good one in their circumstance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/world ... .html?_r=0

Strike on Syria Would Cause One on Israel, Iran Declares

Iranian lawmakers and commanders issued stark warnings to the United States and its allies on Tuesday, saying any military strike on Syria would lead to a retaliatory attack on Israel fanned by “the flames of outrage.”

(continued)

Iran really wants to be glassed?
If they strike Israel, I doubt the Jews will have any qualms about nuclear response.

It depends on the nature of the strike. Israel puts up with strikes all the time, almost constantly. And, they've had wars with the Arab countries several times, as the Arab countries generally want Israel eradicated. They've not nuked anybody yet, despite being constantly in a state of existential peril. However, if Iran engages in a significant attack, that kills a lot of civilians, if Iran uses nukes or other catastrophic weapons, or if Iran looks to be attacking Israel such that Israel's existence is at stake, I would expect Israel to defend itself and I would support their decision to do so.

[Coito ergo sum]

Just watched a US pundit on Fox news. Paraphrasing : "I've seen no evidence it wasn't the Assad regime, so bombs away". Now that's fucked up.

NBC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd told the hosts of MSNBC’s The Cycle warned that President Barack Obama may believe that seeking congressional authorization to attack Syria in the coming days would be counterproductive. The debate over a resolution would take too long and jeopardize too many Syrian lives, Todd said, if it passes at all.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chuck-todd-o ... -on-syria/

You sure it was FoxNews - NBC, and MSNBC and the rest of the US press corps is cheering on the President. He might not get what he wants if he goes to Congress, so best not to bother....

[Coito ergo sum]

US attacks Syria
Syria attacks Israel
Israel attacks Syria
Russia attacks Israel
US attacks Russia
All that's left is the British Empire
Jesus King Arthur returns

CS Lewis was right. Arthur is alive and well on Venus.

[ronmcd]

Just watched a US pundit on Fox news. Paraphrasing : "I've seen no evidence it wasn't the Assad regime, so bombs away". Now that's fucked up.

NBC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd told the hosts of MSNBC’s The Cycle warned that President Barack Obama may believe that seeking congressional authorization to attack Syria in the coming days would be counterproductive. The debate over a resolution would take too long and jeopardize too many Syrian lives, Todd said, if it passes at all.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chuck-todd-o ... -on-syria/

You sure it was FoxNews - NBC, and MSNBC and the rest of the US press corps is cheering on the President. He might not get what he wants if he goes to Congress, so best not to bother....

Wow. Take too long and jeopardize too many Syrian lives?? So lets bomb quickly, cos those Syrian lives ... um ...

More like wait too long and proof might emerge to contradict the "it was Assad" claims.

[ronmcd]

US attacks Syria
Syria attacks Israel
Israel attacks Syria
Russia attacks Israel
US attacks Russia
All that's left is the British Empire
Jesus King Arthur returns

CS Lewis was right. Arthur is alive and well on Venus.

No, no, no. Emperor Rove takes his rightful place in his new throne room in Washington DC, and Darth Blair rules our little corner of the glorious new Sith empire. As it was always planned.

Wait, didn't Alex Jones predict this?

[Mysturji]

America and the other western powers sowed the seeds for this a while ago.
All this bollocks about red lines being crossed, was an open invitation to the Syrian Opposition. If the war starts to go badly for you, you have a last resort.
Let off a chemical weapon on your own people, and the West will give Asad a kicking.

It was pretty obvious that this was coming, if the balance of the fighting went against the opposition.

That's not to say that the government side didn't set off the chemical weapon. But if I had to bet my life, I would bet it was the other side.

Anyway, they are treating it as if it was Asad. Unless they publish the proof, that's absolute bollocks.
It's fifty-fifty at the absolute best. I personally think it's odds-on the opposition.
They have the motive. Asad has no motive, he's already winning.

Bollocks.
For one, the opposition don't have the capability to launch such a chemical attack.
For another, since at least one of the main opposition factions has allied itself with Al-Qaeda, if the opposition has chemical weapons, so does Al-Qaeda, and if Al-Qaeda had chemical weapons, they would not use them in Syria, they would use them in Israel and/or the USA

[cronus]

For my country right or wrong. It's tragic but I'm a patriot and will stand by the decision which deep in my heart I know is deeply deeply stupid. Into the valley of death...dr strangelove.

[Coito ergo sum]

[DaveDodo007]

I have never heard of the EUTimes so I hope I shouldn't be worried.

http://www.eutimes.net/2013/08/putin-or ... cks-syria/

Just to test my blood pressure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/world ... html?_r=1&