Are We Poised for a War in Syria?

[Cheshire Cat]

So now Syria is saying it will give up it's chemical weapons.  http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-kerry/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Is there any chance that bombing would have gotten better results? 

Is there any doubt that going through the process with Congress created the situation where Syria would want to give them up?

I think the President is wrong to want to do this with the military but what a difference between using the American system of the debating in the marketplace of ideas to make a case and running off on our own cowboy diplomacy style.

He has proven he is serious (I am still worried he won't be dissuaded) without firing a shot.

This is a very good outcome.    I do not think we will see any American missiles in Syria at this point. 

[Ajax]

If President Obama doesn't strike Syria because the House & Senate members vote it down. Anymore Chemical Weapon, Bombing or shooting deaths by the Syria Army I will blame those House & Senate members for these deaths!!!

The Obama Administration is on record saying the US can strike Syria with or without Congressional approval.  So why won't you blame Obama for not acting regardless of what Congress says?  While you're at it, go ahead and blame every other government on earth for not acting. 

If the military follows Obama's plan there will most certainly be more shooting and bombing deaths of civilians.  Didn't Obama say they're going to do a limited strike just to get rid of the chemical weapons?  It doesn't sound like Obama or anyone else is particularly worried about the shootings and bombings - just the chemical weapons. 

Who are you holding accountable for the hundreds of innocent children who have been killed by US drone strikes? 

[JeffreyS]

Who are you holding accountable for the hundreds of innocent children who have been killed by US drone strikes? 

You may have to provide something to back up the size of this claim.

[Cheshire Cat]

As we see some positive news unfolding and the Syrian leadership coming to the realization that they must turn over their chemical weapons, more and more ugly information is coming out about the rebel forces that a strike on Syria would have emboldened.  The rebel forces are bringing their own kind of sickness into Syria.  It has already been admitted that they are embedded with Al Qaeda and that they will torture and execute, there is also the revelation that Saudi's have opened their jails and sent their "death row" inmates, murderers, rapists and predators to become part of the "rebel" force.  This is getting pretty sick.  What is also very chilling is the reality that many fighting for Assad are doing so as a result of being threatened with beheading.  This is a nasty civil war who have victims in their ranks on both sides as well as horrific predators. 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/01/21/saudi-inmates-fight-syria-commute-death-sentences/1852629/

Saudi Arabia has sent death-row inmates from several nations to fight against the Syrian government in exchange for commuting their sentences, the Assyrian International News Agency reports.

Citing what it calls a "top secret memo" in April from the Ministry of Interior, AINA says the Saudi offered 1,239 inmates a pardon and a monthly stipend for their families, which were were allowed to stay in the Sunni Arab kingdom. Syrian President Bashar Assad is an Alawite, a minority Shiite sect.

According to an English translation of the memo, besides Saudis, the prisoners included Afghans, Egyptians, Iraqis, Jordanians, Kuwaitis, Pakistanis, Palestinians, Somalis, Sudanese, Syrians and Yemenis. All faced "execution by sword" for murder, rape or drug smuggling.

Russia, which has backed Assad, objected to the bargain and allegedly threatened to bring the issue to the United Nations, said an unidentified former Iraqi member of Parliament who confirmed the memo's authenticity, says AINA, an independent outlet.

"Initially Saudi Arabia denied the existence of this program. But the testimony of the released prisoners forced the Saudi government to admit, in private circles, its existence," AINA writes. "The Saudis agreed to stop their clandestine activities and work towards finding a political solution on condition that knowledge of this program would not be made public."

AINA also published the original Arabic memo.

The report mentions that most of the 23 Iraqi prisoners returned home, as did an unspecified number of Yemenis. But AINA does not indicate the fates of the remaining inmates or how many may have been killed, wounded or captured.

Assyrians, the builders of Mesopotamian civilizations, are a semitic people indigenous to northern Iraq. They are ethnically distinct from Arabs and Jews, and are generally Christians. Assyria dominated the Middle East in the first millennium BCE

[Ajax]

So now Syria is saying it will give up it's chemical weapons.  http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-kerry/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Is there any chance that bombing would have gotten better results? 

Is there any doubt that going through the process with Congress created the situation where Syria would want to give them up?

I think the President is wrong to want to do this with the military but what a difference between using the American system of the debating in the marketplace of ideas to make a case and running off on our own cowboy diplomacy style.

He has proven he is serious (I am still worried he won't be dissuaded) without firing a shot.

Well, this is potentially good news as far as averting any potential war.  Maybe not good news for the rebels/mercenaries or the people who were getting gassed.  Now they'll just get shelled. 

I guess now we'll have the UN go in and confirm.  The US will claim that Assad is still hiding chemical weapons.  But the US is pretty isolated now and if we strike Syria we'll be violating those international norms that Obama loves so much. 

Looks to me like Putin called our bluff! 

[JeffreyS]

It still gives Obama a way out.

[If_I_Loved_you]

So now Syria is saying it will give up it's chemical weapons.  http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-kerry/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Is there any chance that bombing would have gotten better results? 

Is there any doubt that going through the process with Congress created the situation where Syria would want to give them up?

I think the President is wrong to want to do this with the military but what a difference between using the American system of the debating in the marketplace of ideas to make a case and running off on our own cowboy diplomacy style.

He has proven he is serious (I am still worried he won't be dissuaded) without firing a shot.

Well, this is potentially good news as far as averting any potential war.  Maybe not good news for the rebels/mercenaries or the people who were getting gassed.  Now they'll just get shelled. 

I guess now we'll have the UN go in and confirm.  The US will claim that Assad is still hiding chemical weapons.  But the US is pretty isolated now and if we strike Syria we'll be violating those international norms that Obama loves so much. 

Looks to me like Putin called our bluff!

If you could take off your blinders for one second Ajax? Why can't you see that if the United States aka President Obama wouldn't have threaten bombing Syria? Do you think for one second Assad & Putin would have put this plan into action?

[Ajax]

Who are you holding accountable for the hundreds of innocent children who have been killed by US drone strikes? 

You may have to provide something to back up the size of this claim.

In Pakistan alone, Wikipedia reports between 168-197 children killed by drone strikes.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan 

Here's a CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes

This is a recent strike in Afghanistan - we're still killing kids there.  I haven't been able to get numbers on children killed in Yemen and Afghanistan.  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/world/asia/two-deadly-attacks-in-afghanistan.html?_r=0

I'm not familiar with this organization, so take it with a grain of salt.  If they're correct, then the number of children killed in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia exceeds 200.  http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/12/03/november-2012-update-us-covert-actions-in-pakistan-yemen-and-somalia/

I found this, another one that I'll suggest you take with a grain of salt only because I don't know much about their organization, but it lists names of children who have been killed.  http://www.policymic.com/articles/24164/a-list-of-children-killed-by-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-and-yemen

http://www.policymic.com/articles/20884/is-america-like-adam-lanza-u-s-drone-strikes-have-killed-176-children-in-pakistan-alone

My lunch break is over, but I think it's fair to say US drone strikes have inadvertently killed hundreds of innocent children.  Maybe I should have said "scores" or "dozens" but I really don't think that makes it any better. 

[If_I_Loved_you]

This is an interesting news piece coming out of Syria via Mint Press.   Apparently there are "rebels" in Syria saying that they believe they were given "chemical weapons" along with some other weapons supplied by Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

The Prince as it turns out is also very heavily invested and connected in Washington, D.C. and to top politicians.  This information if it proves to be truthful would put a whole new light on the politics in Syria and the politics of U.S. leaders and the Saudi's. 

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/  (click link for entire story)

(to learn more about Mint Press here is their FB link,  https://www.facebook.com/MintpressNewsMPN)

EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack
Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group.

Ghouta, Syria — As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week's chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.

Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much.

The U.S., Britain, and France as well as the Arab League have accused the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for carrying out the chemical weapons attack, which mainly targeted civilians. U.S. warships are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea to launch military strikes against Syria in punishment for carrying out a massive chemical weapons attack. The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad's guilt was "a judgment ... already clear to the world."

However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

"My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry," said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

Diane I thought you were the first one to bring this so called News Agency up? Mint Press News WHAT A JOKE! Look at what Wikipedia has said about MPN?


Mint Press News (MPN) is a US news website established in January 2012, based in Minnesota.[1] Founded by Mnar A. Muhawesh, a Minnesota-born daughter of Palestinian immigrants, and journalism graduate of St. Cloud State University, it aims to bring foreign news to a US audience, with a particular focus on the Middle East.[2] In September 2013 it listed ten reporters on its website.[3]

In September 2013 MPN's reporting, allegedly based on interviews with rebels in Damascus, that the Al-Nusra Front was responsible for the 2013 Ghouta attacks attracted marginal attention and was picked up by Voice of Russia and Press TV.[4][5][6][7][8][9]

The editor has investors, "retired businesspeople", but she will not name them — "unfortunate for a journalism operation fighting alongside people seeking transparency. The site's "About Us" page is similarly skinny." [10] Her father-in-law Odeh A. Muhawesh — an adjunct St. Thomas theology professor, and veteran Twin Cities businessman — is a key adviser. The Odeh Muhawesh Fan page on Facebook starts at the top with a link to Iran Press TV and carries much anti Syrian rebel material. Mint Press News has been characterized as a 'Shia advocacy site' on PJ Media.[11][unreliable source?]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mint_Press_News

[Cheshire Cat]

Perhaps President Obama is in fact handling this situation with a political savvy never before seen in the office of President.  A "Hawk" who retains his status by not firing a shot. 

http://freakoutnation.blogspot.com/2013/09/president-obamas-brilliant-strategy-no.html  (click link for full story)

As the media interprets recent events as Obama's march to war, America and the world falls for it hook, line and sinker. Say what you want about Obama but he is a very smart man. He would never ask permission he did not need from Congress to launch a strike on Syria unless he knew beyond a doubt he could get it. That is if his real intentions were to actually carry out military operations. But why on earth does it appear he wants this war?

After agonizing over this question over and over I began to realize there is only one logical explanation. He does not. Only a month ago the GOP was accusing Obama of being weak for not acting when the "red line" was crossed. There was pressure for him not only from the US but from the world as well. The reputation of the great American defender was on the line. Still it was obvious at the time Obama did not want to rush into another quagmire, bogging down the rest of his tenure as our nation's leader. But the evidence kept rolling in. He had to do something not only for his reputation as a world leader but for the United States as well.

Cue the British Parliament to provide Obama with the perfect out. Just days after Britain's governing body eliminated any joint action with the US to participate in a coalition to strike the Assad regime, Obama made a surprising and decisive move. Against the advice of all his advisors, he put any US participation in the hands of our do-nothing Congress with no chance they would give him the approval he needed. Not because it isn't the right thing to do but because Obama was asking for it. The outcome is a given if you just take a step back and look at the situation rationally. And there is no way Obama is going to launch this attack once Congress says no. It would be political suicide. Bush may have gotten away with it but America is not going to let it happen again. The fallout would signal the end of any and all effectiveness the Obama administration for the remaining years of his presidency. And history would place him with the likes of war criminals like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Let me repeat this. Obama is not that stupid!

So why then does our president appear to be beating the drums of war? The simple answer is he is now regarded as a hawkish leader before the US and the world. And he does so without having to fire a shot. He appears wholeheartedly in favor of a strike and is playing the part well. The hawk stands upon his perch without lifting a talon as Congress now takes any and all responsibility for lack of action on the part of the US. And during this entire debacle, he even manages to make republicans come out as anti-war; something even no one thought possible only a month ago
- See more at: http://freakoutnation.blogspot.com/2013/09/president-obamas-brilliant-strategy-no.html#sthash.xmxXPBDA.dpuf

[Ajax]

If you could take off your blinders for one second Ajax? Why can't you see that if the United States aka President Obama wouldn't have threaten bombing Syria? Do you think for one second Assad & Putin would have put this plan into action?

Ok, blinders are off.  I acknowledge your point.  I agree that there is a very strong possibility that they wouldn't have done this without someone holding a gun to their heads.  Maybe Putin called our bluff, or maybe we called theirs.  *Puts blinders back on* I still don't think Obama has the Constitutional authority to do it, and I don't want the US involved in any more of these damned wars.

[Cheshire Cat]

Obama's approach to the Syrian issue.  Perhaps the world underestimated his ability to play political chess.



http://www.policymic.com/articles/62177/you-think-obama-wants-to-strike-syria-you-re-wrong

You Think Obama Wants to Strike Syria? You're Wrong



Let's be real for one second: President Barack Obama never had any intention for a military intervention in Syria. Every speech calling for United States action, "targeted strikes" or otherwise, every promise that the U.S. will not stand on the sidelines, the turn to Congress for approval — it has all been part of a political stunt. Obama played us good.

Less than a week ago, it seemed like a foregone conclusion that Obama would take executive action and pull the trigger on a missile strike against Syria in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad's regime's use of chemical weaponry against Syrian rebels and civilians on August 21. Sure, the president kept promising that he had "not made a decision" on military intervention. But at the same time, his administration made it clear that there was "no doubt" the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own citizens, thus crossing the "red line" Obama set a year ago when he said "A red line for us is when start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." And yet now intervention has been put to Congress and looks like a long shot. Why would Obama go to Congress for approval, when he, despite a few legal qualms, could have pulled off a strike unilaterally — and even did so in Libya two years ago?

During this feigned war mongering, Obama has routinely claimed that U.S. credibility is at stake. In reality, though, the only credibility on the line is his own. Of course Obama doesn't want to invade Syria. It makes no sense for him. It's wildly unpopular with the public (to the tune of a 48% to 29% margin), politically disastrous within his own party, and garnering support from the sort of people the president wants nothing to do with (we're looking at you, Sen. Lindsey Graham). But he couldn't back off his previous stance, and he couldn't appear weak. If there's one thing Obama hates, it's looking weak.

So what does the president do when he wants to save face? First, he does some macho posturing, using phrases like "a danger to [U.S.] national security" and making it clear he's not afraid to go it alone. He calls out the UN Security Council for being, essentially, useless. He sends Secretary of State John Kerry out to present the evidence of a chemical attack and lay down the number of casualties and death toll. He makes everyone really, truly believe the U.S. is set for a strike on Syria.

And then, at the last minute, the president sends the decision to Congress ... where he knows it won't pass. Because the president doesn't want to strike Syria, he just has to pretend he does. This way, Congress takes the heat for doing nothing. At least Obama can say he tried. What does he do to make sure the U.S. stays out of Syria? Obama tanks.

The actions of the Obama administration since August 31, when Obama sent the vote to Congress, have been the actions of an administration throwing the fight. If he was really gunning for military action, he would've done it himself, not send it to a Congress that has been obstructionist since the get-go. Everything Obama has tried to push through has been dead on arrival, so why would this be any different? And let's say Obama did want Congress to pass an authorization of force; he wouldn't meet with the likes of the establishment like Sens. John McCain and Boehner, he'd meet with the ones standing in his way, like Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Mitch McConnell.

[If_I_Loved_you]

If you could take off your blinders for one second Ajax? Why can't you see that if the United States aka President Obama wouldn't have threaten bombing Syria? Do you think for one second Assad & Putin would have put this plan into action?

Ok, blinders are off.  I acknowledge your point.  I agree that there is a very strong possibility that they wouldn't have done this without someone holding a gun to their heads.  Maybe Putin called our bluff, or maybe we called theirs.  *Puts blinders back on* I still don't think Obama has the Constitutional authority to do it, and I don't want the US involved in any more of these damned wars.

" I acknowledge your point." Thank You!

[Ajax]

Obama's approach to the Syrian issue.  Perhaps the world underestimated his ability to play political chess.

Just sounds like some political spin-doctoring to me. 

[BridgeTroll]

Obama's approach to the Syrian issue.  Perhaps the world underestimated his ability to play political chess.



http://www.policymic.com/articles/62177/you-think-obama-wants-to-strike-syria-you-re-wrong

You Think Obama Wants to Strike Syria? You're Wrong



Let's be real for one second: President Barack Obama never had any intention for a military intervention in Syria. Every speech calling for United States action, "targeted strikes" or otherwise, every promise that the U.S. will not stand on the sidelines, the turn to Congress for approval — it has all been part of a political stunt. Obama played us good.

Less than a week ago, it seemed like a foregone conclusion that Obama would take executive action and pull the trigger on a missile strike against Syria in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad's regime's use of chemical weaponry against Syrian rebels and civilians on August 21. Sure, the president kept promising that he had "not made a decision" on military intervention. But at the same time, his administration made it clear that there was "no doubt" the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own citizens, thus crossing the "red line" Obama set a year ago when he said "A red line for us is when start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." And yet now intervention has been put to Congress and looks like a long shot. Why would Obama go to Congress for approval, when he, despite a few legal qualms, could have pulled off a strike unilaterally — and even did so in Libya two years ago?

During this feigned war mongering, Obama has routinely claimed that U.S. credibility is at stake. In reality, though, the only credibility on the line is his own. Of course Obama doesn't want to invade Syria. It makes no sense for him. It's wildly unpopular with the public (to the tune of a 48% to 29% margin), politically disastrous within his own party, and garnering support from the sort of people the president wants nothing to do with (we're looking at you, Sen. Lindsey Graham). But he couldn't back off his previous stance, and he couldn't appear weak. If there's one thing Obama hates, it's looking weak.

So what does the president do when he wants to save face? First, he does some macho posturing, using phrases like "a danger to [U.S.] national security" and making it clear he's not afraid to go it alone. He calls out the UN Security Council for being, essentially, useless. He sends Secretary of State John Kerry out to present the evidence of a chemical attack and lay down the number of casualties and death toll. He makes everyone really, truly believe the U.S. is set for a strike on Syria.

And then, at the last minute, the president sends the decision to Congress ... where he knows it won't pass. Because the president doesn't want to strike Syria, he just has to pretend he does. This way, Congress takes the heat for doing nothing. At least Obama can say he tried. What does he do to make sure the U.S. stays out of Syria? Obama tanks.

The actions of the Obama administration since August 31, when Obama sent the vote to Congress, have been the actions of an administration throwing the fight. If he was really gunning for military action, he would've done it himself, not send it to a Congress that has been obstructionist since the get-go. Everything Obama has tried to push through has been dead on arrival, so why would this be any different? And let's say Obama did want Congress to pass an authorization of force; he wouldn't meet with the likes of the establishment like Sens. John McCain and Boehner, he'd meet with the ones standing in his way, like Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Mitch McConnell.

There are not enough "winky" thingies for this...lol