Metro Jacksonville

Barely out of one war and it is sure beginning to look as though the U.S. and the U.K. want to roll out that war machine again.  I mean really, it is costly to keep that military machine on "idle" right.  ::)  The need to go to war is once again focused around the issue of "chemical weapons".  Someone discharged some in Syria. No one is sure who did and even if they did, but man or man the saber's are already rattling.  I find the thought of war in Syria chilling, even beyond the as yet not fully vetted instances of chemical weapon use and who used them.  We have seen in recent years the reality that this type of "warfare" where identifying combatant's and friendlies is next to impossible has resulted an horrific and lasing impact on our troops when put in that situation.  Moral down, post traumatic stress off the charts,  suicide's up and innocent civilians murdered.  Yeah, I get the "horror" of chemical weapons taking out masses of innocent people but I also get that bomb's and heavy weaponry do the same damn thing.  We don't need to go into Syria. I am not ready to hear about the blood of America's young troops being spilled over folks in power trying to control one another.  Has no one learned anything from the moral and physical costs of wars like these?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/europe/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1  (click link for full story)

Quote
(CNN) -- British Prime Minister David Cameron opened an emergency session of the House of Commons Thursday by saying the debate on Syria is about "how to respond to one of most abhorrent uses of chemical weapons in a century" -- not about regime change or invasion.
"Put simply, is it in Britain's national interest in maintaining an international taboo against the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield?" Cameron asked lawmakers. "I would say yes it is."
Cameron told members of the House of Commons -- whom he recalled from summer vacation to debate a British response to the deaths of hundreds in a chemical weapons attack outside Damascus last week -- that the government would not act without first hearing from U.N. weapons inspectors, giving the United Nations a chance to weigh in and Parliament to have another vote.
But Cameron said a failure to act by the international community would give Syrian President Bashar al-Assad the unmistakable signal that he could use such weapons "with impunity."
In New York, meanwhile, the U.N. Security Council prepared for a closed-door meeting Thursday afternoon. The session was called by Russia, Syria's leading ally, a Western diplomat told CNN.
In Washington, the White House said it would be briefing American lawmakers Thursday evening. But a senior U.S. official told CNN the use of chemical weapons last week was not the act of a "rogue element" of the Syrian military, and that there was no doubt al-Assad's government was behind it.

No doubt... as long as they keep the gas and bombs and bullets within Syria... they should be allowed to settle things however they want to...  8)

I am not saying we don't have more justification for this war than Iraq. I just have no stomach for this war even on a limited basis.

At the very least Congress should vote on it and a war tax should be passed before any action is taken.

We don't need to become involved in another damn war over internal issues elsewhere and we sure don't need our kid's dying over the stuff going on in Syria.  The U.S cannot patrol the world and we need to stop "inserting" ourselves into these incidents in other countries.  If the U.N. says it will not abide "chemical weapons" then the U.N. needs to send in troops.  America needs to stay out of it period!  I appreciate the devastation in the hearts and minds of those innocents suffering in Syria, at the same time I don't want kids here dying over there while they work toward creating a different political system.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 29, 2013, 04:01:07 PM
We don't need to become involved in another damn war over internal issues elsewhere and we sure don't need our kid's dying over the stuff going on in Syria.  The U.S cannot patrol the world and we need to stop "inserting" ourselves into these incidents in other countries.  If the U.N. says it will not abide "chemical weapons" then the U.N. needs to send in troops.  America needs to stay out of it period!  I appreciate the devastation in the hearts and minds of those innocents suffering in Syria, at the same time I don't want kids here dying over there while they work toward creating a different political system.

Diane we don't want to put boots on the ground? But I would love putting some cruise missiles into Syria telling them using chemical weapons on your own people is Stupid. I always love these arguments when people say it's none of are business? Well then we shouldn't have gone to WAR at all against anybody? Fat chance of that happening. ;)

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 29, 2013, 07:10:20 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 29, 2013, 04:01:07 PM
We don't need to become involved in another damn war over internal issues elsewhere and we sure don't need our kid's dying over the stuff going on in Syria.  The U.S cannot patrol the world and we need to stop "inserting" ourselves into these incidents in other countries.  If the U.N. says it will not abide "chemical weapons" then the U.N. needs to send in troops.  America needs to stay out of it period!  I appreciate the devastation in the hearts and minds of those innocents suffering in Syria, at the same time I don't want kids here dying over there while they work toward creating a different political system.

Diane we don't want to put boots on the ground? But I would love putting some cruise missiles into Syria telling them using chemical weapons on your own people is Stupid. I always love these arguments when people say it's none of are business? Well then we shouldn't have gone to WAR at all against anybody? Fat chance of that happening. ;)

Wait, wait, wait.  This is from the Christian?  How do you know those destroyed with a cruise missile would be those responsible for the chemical weapons? That has not been determined.  It is going to be next to impossible to know who used the chemical weapons in the end.  Are you saying we just bomb anyone to make a point cause gosh killing with chemical weapons is wrong but using cruise missiles is kewl? 

About that military industry.  Amazing how the stock in weapons goes up at the thought of blood on the ground. 


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/alan-grayson-syria_n_3836276.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
(click link for full story)

QuoteAlan Grayson On Syria Strike: 'Nobody Wants This Except The Military-Industrial Complex'
WASHINGTON -- Citing his responsibility to represent the views of his constituents, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said Thursday that he can't support an attack on Syria that his voters strongly oppose.

"One thing that is perfectly clear to me in my district, and I think is true in many other districts from speaking to other members, is that there is no desire, no desire on the part of people to be the world's policeman," Grayson said on SiriusXM's "The Agenda with Ari Rabin-Havt," which aired Thursday morning. "For us to pick up this gauntlet even on the basis of unequivocal evidence of chemical warfare by the Syrian army, deliberately against its own people -- even if there were unequivocal evidence of that -- that's just not what people in my district want."

IMO we should stay the hell away from Syria, but unfortunately it looks like Obama will find a way to get involved in that mess. No matter what we do in that mess over there, those people will hate us anyway just for being Americans. Let them handle their own issues in the wonderful world of Sharia Law. Screw the PC crap, it seems like most of those people are hellbent on violence anyway, it's in their religion. I never understood that stupid 'red line' crap; Bullets are okay, but gas is a no-no....

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 29, 2013, 07:41:12 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 29, 2013, 07:10:20 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 29, 2013, 04:01:07 PM
We don't need to become involved in another damn war over internal issues elsewhere and we sure don't need our kid's dying over the stuff going on in Syria.  The U.S cannot patrol the world and we need to stop "inserting" ourselves into these incidents in other countries.  If the U.N. says it will not abide "chemical weapons" then the U.N. needs to send in troops.  America needs to stay out of it period!  I appreciate the devastation in the hearts and minds of those innocents suffering in Syria, at the same time I don't want kids here dying over there while they work toward creating a different political system.

Diane we don't want to put boots on the ground? But I would love putting some cruise missiles into Syria telling them using chemical weapons on your own people is Stupid. I always love these arguments when people say it's none of are business? Well then we shouldn't have gone to WAR at all against anybody? Fat chance of that happening. ;)

Wait, wait, wait.  This is from the Christian?  How do you know those destroyed with a cruise missile would be those responsible for the chemical weapons? That has not been determined.  It is going to be next to impossible to know who used the chemical weapons in the end.  Are you saying we just bomb anyone to make a point cause gosh killing with chemical weapons is wrong but using cruise missiles is kewl?

Diane yes I'm a christian but you do know that a lot of people who are soldiers have a christian faith? When cruise missiles are used you try to go after targets you feel are the best to hit. Do innocence people die yes.

Quote from: I-10east on August 29, 2013, 08:25:20 PM
IMO we should stay the hell away from Syria, but unfortunately it looks like Obama will find a way to get involved in that mess. No matter what we do in that mess over there, those people will hate us anyway just for being Americans. Let them handle their own issues in the wonderful world of Sharia Law. Screw the PC crap, it seems like most of those people are hellbent on violence anyway, it's in their religion. I never understood that stupid 'red line' crap; Bullets are okay, but gas is a no-no....

I agree.  If Obama gets us in this mess he will have done what many other Presidents before him have done.  I don't want to see him follow that same ugly road.  My guess is that there is plenty of pressure coming from the military for him to engage.  The chemical weapon crap is fodder for more violence and war.  Seriously, America dropped an atom bomb on civilians.  Are we now pretending that that action was not more violent than chemical weapons are supposed to be?  It used to be the big concern about the development of chemical weapons was for use by terrorists.  In the type of situation we are seeing in Syria regarding chemical weapons, if they were used they were already developed so the worldwide ban on such weaponry and the violence in Iraq in response to alleged chemical weapons did nothing to stop other crazies in other countries from manufacturing them.  So the point becomes what exactly?  More death as a statement against killing?  It's insane.

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 29, 2013, 08:33:49 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 29, 2013, 07:41:12 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 29, 2013, 07:10:20 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 29, 2013, 04:01:07 PM
We don't need to become involved in another damn war over internal issues elsewhere and we sure don't need our kid's dying over the stuff going on in Syria.  The U.S cannot patrol the world and we need to stop "inserting" ourselves into these incidents in other countries.  If the U.N. says it will not abide "chemical weapons" then the U.N. needs to send in troops.  America needs to stay out of it period!  I appreciate the devastation in the hearts and minds of those innocents suffering in Syria, at the same time I don't want kids here dying over there while they work toward creating a different political system.

Diane we don't want to put boots on the ground? But I would love putting some cruise missiles into Syria telling them using chemical weapons on your own people is Stupid. I always love these arguments when people say it's none of are business? Well then we shouldn't have gone to WAR at all against anybody? Fat chance of that happening. ;)

Wait, wait, wait.  This is from the Christian?  How do you know those destroyed with a cruise missile would be those responsible for the chemical weapons? That has not been determined.  It is going to be next to impossible to know who used the chemical weapons in the end.  Are you saying we just bomb anyone to make a point cause gosh killing with chemical weapons is wrong but using cruise missiles is kewl?

Diane yes I'm a christian but you do know that a lot of people who are soldiers have a christian faith? When cruise missiles are used you try to go after targets you feel are the best to hit. Do innocence people die yes.

So, what targets are best for the U.S. to go after in this situation?  Do we bomb both Christian and non Christian folks, only Muslims, only Christians, elderly Syrian's, Syrian children, believers, non believers?  Who is it okay to bomb and how do you parse out the bad from the good, the friendlies from the war mongers?  The easy answer is that the military will say it is possible, the truth is that innocent people will die at American hands if we engage in this mess, which is not our mess. This is why our soldiers are committing suicide, why our veterans suffer more P.T.S.D than ever before.  War's like this.  The U.N. can't even get their inspectors into the core of action where the chemical weapons were used.  There is no way to prove who set them off.   Clearly I know there are soldiers of all religious and non religious backgrounds who are part of our military.  My own family has members who have served in all the wars gone by.  My response was squarely in reaction to your words about loving to drop a missile on another country, that will kill innocents mind you, when you so regularly post scripture and talk about the teachings of Jesus. 

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 29, 2013, 08:34:01 PM

Quote from: I-10east on August 29, 2013, 08:25:20 PM
IMO we should stay the hell away from Syria, but unfortunately it looks like Obama will find a way to get involved in that mess. No matter what we do in that mess over there, those people will hate us anyway just for being Americans. Let them handle their own issues in the wonderful world of Sharia Law. Screw the PC crap, it seems like most of those people are hellbent on violence anyway, it's in their religion. I never understood that stupid 'red line' crap; Bullets are okay, but gas is a no-no....

I agree.  If Obama gets us in this mess he will have done what many other Presidents before him have done.  I don't want to see him follow that same ugly road.  My guess is that there is plenty of pressure coming from the military for him to engage.  The chemical weapon crap is fodder for more violence and war.  Seriously, America dropped an atom bomb on civilians.  Are we now pretending that that action was not more violent than chemical weapons are supposed to be?  It used to be the big concern about the development of chemical weapons was for use by terrorists.  In the type of situation we are seeing in Syria regarding chemical weapons, if they were used they were already developed so the worldwide ban on such weaponry and the violence in Iraq in response to alleged chemical weapons did nothing to stop other crazies in other countries from manufacturing them.  So the point becomes what exactly?  More death as a statement against killing?  It's insane.

So we do nothing? Because the Middle East problem isn't going away. Egypt is in turmoil! Yemen is in turmoil! Iraq is in turmoil! and so many other area's of the Middle east are in turmoil. Is it best we put are heads in the sands and wish everything will be OK?

Yes, we do nothing to further engage a violent situation that we didn't create and that we cannot fix. We do not engage but we help those who have fled, who are injured, who need medicine and any other non violent thing we can do to support them. Let the U.N. handle this situation and the amount of force used to respond.  We are not the world's police and the truth is they hate us for our interference when we go and complain we are at fault when we do nothing.  News flash, we cannot fix the problems in the middle east.  We can only decide how many of our own youth we are willing to lose in a conflict that is not ours to settle.  This has nothing to do with heads in the sand but is rather about looking squarely at the reality of war in a country where nothing will be solved by our involvement. 

Well, if it means anything, they are starting to deploy people out of Mayport.  Several got their orders in the last few days to ship out to the Mediterranean by air and catch their boats en route.

They have been drilling a lot the last few weeks. If anything they are getting people ready.

It was also reported today that the Russian Navy is dispatching 2 ships to the area. A guided missile frigate and a anti-submarine destroyer.

Anytime you get a lot of military action in one location, some one is going to make a mistake and bad things happen.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 29, 2013, 08:40:53 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 29, 2013, 08:33:49 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 29, 2013, 07:41:12 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 29, 2013, 07:10:20 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 29, 2013, 04:01:07 PM
We don't need to become involved in another damn war over internal issues elsewhere and we sure don't need our kid's dying over the stuff going on in Syria.  The U.S cannot patrol the world and we need to stop "inserting" ourselves into these incidents in other countries.  If the U.N. says it will not abide "chemical weapons" then the U.N. needs to send in troops.  America needs to stay out of it period!  I appreciate the devastation in the hearts and minds of those innocents suffering in Syria, at the same time I don't want kids here dying over there while they work toward creating a different political system.

Diane we don't want to put boots on the ground? But I would love putting some cruise missiles into Syria telling them using chemical weapons on your own people is Stupid. I always love these arguments when people say it's none of are business? Well then we shouldn't have gone to WAR at all against anybody? Fat chance of that happening. ;)

Wait, wait, wait.  This is from the Christian?  How do you know those destroyed with a cruise missile would be those responsible for the chemical weapons? That has not been determined.  It is going to be next to impossible to know who used the chemical weapons in the end.  Are you saying we just bomb anyone to make a point cause gosh killing with chemical weapons is wrong but using cruise missiles is kewl?

Diane yes I'm a christian but you do know that a lot of people who are soldiers have a christian faith? When cruise missiles are used you try to go after targets you feel are the best to hit. Do innocence people die yes.

So, what targets are best for the U.S. to go after in this situation?  Do we bomb both Christian and non Christian folks, only Muslims, only Christians, elderly Syrian's, Syrian children, believers, non believers?  Who is it okay to bomb and how do you parse out the bad from the good, the friendlies from the war mongers?  The easy answer is that the military will say it is possible, the truth is that innocent people will die at American hands if we engage in this mess, which is not our mess. This is why our soldiers are committing suicide, why our veterans suffer more P.T.S.D than ever before.  War's like this.  The U.N. can't even get their inspectors into the core of action where the chemical weapons were used.  There is no way to prove who set them off.   Clearly I know there are soldiers of all religious and non religious backgrounds who are part of our military.  My own family has members who have served in all the wars gone by.  My response was squarely in reaction to your words about loving to drop a missile on another country, that will kill innocents mind you, when you so regularly post scripture and talk about the teachings of Jesus.

(My response was squarely in reaction to your words about loving to drop a missile on another country, that will kill innocents mind you, when you so regularly post scripture and talk about the teachings of Jesus.) Your Right Diane I did say "But I would love putting some cruise missiles into Syria telling them using chemical weapons on your own people is Stupid." Now Diane did I say I wanted to kill innocence people? Does it happen yes it does but if we do nothing and Bashar al-Assad keeps killing his own people are we not as Guilty as he? And yes I post scripture and I love Jesus but did I say I was perfect? No one here on Earth is!

Quote from: spuwho on August 29, 2013, 09:05:19 PM
Well, if it means anything, they are starting to deploy people out of Mayport.  Several got their orders in the last few days to ship out to the Mediterranean by air and catch their boats en route.

They have been drilling a lot the last few weeks. If anything they are getting people ready.

It was also reported today that the Russian Navy is dispatching 2 ships to the area. A guided missile frigate and a anti-submarine destroyer.

Anytime you get a lot of military action in one location, some one is going to make a mistake and bad things happen.

I drove by N.A.S. on Roosevelt today and saw some tents I haven't seen before near Allegheny Rd on base?

Well, IILU if you would "love" to send in cruise missiles, innocents will die.  So yes, in a way you are saying you are willing to see innocent people die because you feel someone needs to be taught a lesson.  But my question is what "is" the real lesson and the reality of such action?  Blood and death of innocent people is as bad as it gets.  How in the world you rationalize that not sending our own young men and women to die in another land because some monster named Bashar is killing his own people and we are then as culpable as he is astounds and confounds me.  It is the people of his country that must rise up to fight this type of action and make the way for a real and lasting change.  It is not our job and frankly I am tired of this mindset that has made it our job for too long.  Yes support those in need in whatever non violent way that we can, even helping with intelligence and strategies giving most of our support to refugees, the injured, the ill and the innocent.  Provide medical help, food, water, clothing, education, whatever, but do not spill our children's blood in a land that can only be changed from within.  I did not say you were perfect but seriously, I just don't get how people who claim to love a man named Jesus can "love" the idea of bombing others.  In all honesty, how would you explain that statement to Jesus, face to face?  Do you think he would say, yeah go ahead kill whomever you need to kill, including the innocent among the bad to make a point?  I am curious to know how those who claim to follow Christian teachings square this sort of action in the face of the teachings of Jesus. I don't know why I imagine that quoting scripture should also include following it to some degree.  Crazy me.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 29, 2013, 08:53:11 PM
Yes, we do nothing to further engage a violent situation that we didn't create and that we cannot fix. We do not engage but we help those who have fled, who are injured, who need medicine and any other non violent thing we can do to support them. Let the U.N. handle this situation and the amount of force used to respond.  We are not the world's police and the truth is they hate us for our interference when we go and complain we are at fault when we do nothing.  News flash, we cannot fix the problems in the middle east.  We can only decide how many of our own youth we are willing to lose in a conflict that is not ours to settle.  This has nothing to do with heads in the sand but is rather about looking squarely at the reality of war in a country where nothing will be solved by our involvement.

(News flash, we cannot fix the problems in the middle east.) Diane all we are doing is letting off steam the powers in control care about nothing we say!

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 29, 2013, 09:24:55 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 29, 2013, 08:53:11 PM
Yes, we do nothing to further engage a violent situation that we didn't create and that we cannot fix. We do not engage but we help those who have fled, who are injured, who need medicine and any other non violent thing we can do to support them. Let the U.N. handle this situation and the amount of force used to respond.  We are not the world's police and the truth is they hate us for our interference when we go and complain we are at fault when we do nothing.  News flash, we cannot fix the problems in the middle east.  We can only decide how many of our own youth we are willing to lose in a conflict that is not ours to settle.  This has nothing to do with heads in the sand but is rather about looking squarely at the reality of war in a country where nothing will be solved by our involvement.

(News flash, we cannot fix the problems in the middle east.) Diane all we are doing is letting off steam the powers in control care about nothing we say!

I am not letting off steam.  I am saying I have had enough of war mongering and the death of our youth in lands where their death will change "nothing".  I am not alone in these feelings and my guess is that if enough people speak up and out about the fact that we have had it with world policing and the driving of an out of control military industry, we can at least mitigate some of the violence and death.  This is much more to me than letting off steam and I will always look for non violent resolution to conflicts over violence and death.  I will be contacting the countries senators and congress members as well as the President to let them know that we should "not" engage this dispute in Syria.

Quote from: spuwho on August 29, 2013, 09:05:19 PM
Well, if it means anything, they are starting to deploy people out of Mayport.  Several got their orders in the last few days to ship out to the Mediterranean by air and catch their boats en route.

They have been drilling a lot the last few weeks. If anything they are getting people ready.

It was also reported today that the Russian Navy is dispatching 2 ships to the area. A guided missile frigate and a anti-submarine destroyer.

Anytime you get a lot of military action in one location, some one is going to make a mistake and bad things happen.

I know they are taking such actions and I know the upstanding troops we send will do what they are asked to do. As an American citizen I think we need to stop asking them to die to make a political point and drive a military machine in a country that will not and cannot change until it does so from the inside out on their own.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 29, 2013, 09:21:32 PM
Well, IILU if you would "love" to send in cruise missiles, innocents will die.  So yes, in a way you are saying you are willing to see innocent people die because you feel someone needs to be taught a lesson.  But my question is what "is" the real lesson and the reality of such action?  Blood and death of innocent people is as bad as it gets.  How in the world you rationalize that not sending our own young men and women to die in another land because some monster named Bashar is killing his own people and we are then as culpable as he is astounds and confounds me.  It is the people of his country that must rise up to fight this type of action and make the way for a real and lasting change.  It is not our job and frankly I am tired of this mindset that has made it our job for too long.  Yes support those in need in whatever non violent way that we can, even helping with intelligence and strategies giving most of our support to refugees, the injured, the ill and the innocent.  Provide medical help, food, water, clothing, education, whatever, but do not spill our children's blood in a land that can only be changed from within.  I did not say your were perfect but seriously, I just don't get how people who claim to love a man named Jesus can "love" the idea of bombing others.  In all honesty, how would you explain that statement to Jesus, face to face?  Do you think he would say, yeah go ahead kill whomever you need to kill, including the innocent among the bad to make a point?  I am curious to know how those who claim to follow Christian teachings square this sort of action in the face of the teachings of Jesus.

Diane the people that want the syrian leader Assad dead do we give them weapons or is this also taboo? The CIA and others have been helping out. But this war in Syria has been going on for two years with over 100,000 killed. I ask God for a lot of things and some things I get an answer to and others I don't. I have almost lost my life twice both times God answered my prayers this is what I believe in my heart. Diane I would love to seat down and talk with Jesus one on one face to face. About everything I have felt about anything. Amen!

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 29, 2013, 09:30:56 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 29, 2013, 09:24:55 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 29, 2013, 08:53:11 PM
Yes, we do nothing to further engage a violent situation that we didn't create and that we cannot fix. We do not engage but we help those who have fled, who are injured, who need medicine and any other non violent thing we can do to support them. Let the U.N. handle this situation and the amount of force used to respond.  We are not the world's police and the truth is they hate us for our interference when we go and complain we are at fault when we do nothing.  News flash, we cannot fix the problems in the middle east.  We can only decide how many of our own youth we are willing to lose in a conflict that is not ours to settle.  This has nothing to do with heads in the sand but is rather about looking squarely at the reality of war in a country where nothing will be solved by our involvement.

(News flash, we cannot fix the problems in the middle east.) Diane all we are doing is letting off steam the powers in control care about nothing we say!

I am not letting off steam.  I am saying I have had enough of war mongering and the death of our youth in lands where their death will change "nothing".  I am not alone in these feelings and my guess is that if enough people speak up and out about the fact that we have had it with world policing and the driving of an out of control military industry, we can at least mitigate some of the violence and death.  This is much more to me than letting off steam and I will always look for non violent resolution to conflicts over violence and death.  I will be contacting the countries senators and congress members as well as the President to let them know that we should "not" engage this dispute in Syria.

I sent a letter to President Obama a couple of days ago. I have done this several times when I felt I needed to tell the top man in office at this time until Hillary wins in 2016. How I have felt about major problems in America and the World.  ;)

I called the White House a message today.202-456-1111

I do not want military action in Syria
Congress should vote
and Taxes to pay for it should be enacted before any action is considered.

Quote from: JeffreyS on August 29, 2013, 10:19:53 PM
I called the White House a message today.202-456-1111

I do not want military action in Syria
Congress should vote
and Taxes to pay for it should be enacted before any action is considered.

Good job Jeffrey and thank you for posting the phone number.  I hope others will also call and let our leadership know how they feel about the situation with Syria and what roll if any we as a nation should play in it. 

 We don't need the UN to go into Syria! http://live.wsj.com/video/why-chemical-weapons-may-spur-syrian-intervention/64402B9A-3EAF-441B-A828-8FB6883FF247.html

(http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2013/08/22/1226701/660536-syria-chemical-attack.jpg)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/syrian-army-blamed-as-hundreds-die-in-chemical-weapons-attacks/story-e6frg6so-1226701675380

Poll: 67% of Israeli Jews support US attack against Syria

Israel Hayom survey conducted by New Wave Research shows that almost same percentage (66.8%) believe such an attack would drag Israel into war • 57% think IDF will act against specific targets or threats • Over 71% of those questioned have gas masks.

Israel is perhaps the only Western country where there is widespread support for an American/European attack on Syria. While in the United States and Great Britain, some 90 percent of the publics are opposed to such an attack -- in Israel, more than 66% of the Jewish Hebrew-speaking population supports an attack (only 17% opposes). With that, the exact same percentage of the population is concerned that if such an attack occurs, Israel will be drawn into a war.

This duality, which characterizes the Israeli mood and public discourse in recent weeks, receives statistical affirmation in an Israel Hayom survey conducted by New Wave Research.

Israelis believe that ultimately an attack against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime will take place -- close to 73% of Israelis believe so. More than 57% believe if the U.S. attacks Syria, the Israel Defense Forces will act against specific targets or threats. Only 13% think that the situation will deteriorate into all-out war in the Middle East. Over 28.7% said they are not concerned that a U.S. attack will drag Israel into a war.

The survey also found that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has clear advantage over his political rivals as the person most qualified to lead the country: 54% said he is best suited for the job, compared to Opposition Leader and Labor Chairwoman Shelly Yachimovich (9.2%), Habayit Hayehudi Chairman Naftali Bennet (8.6%) and Yesh Atid Chairman Yair Lapid (3%). One quarter of the respondents said they were undecided.

Another statistic of note coming from the survey is that over 71% of those questioned have equipped themselves with a gas mask. Of those who still have not, some 25% said they intended to do so in the coming days (some 7% of all those polled). 37% said they do not intend to get gas masks (some 10% of all those polled), and the same percentage said they have not yet decided.

The survey was conducted on August 28, and is comprised of a random pool of 500 Jewish Hebrew speaking Israelis over the age of 18. There is a margin of error of 4.4 percent.
http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/toolbar.html

Quote from: Apache on August 30, 2013, 01:26:31 PM
Unfortunately, these are very hard decisions to make in reality. I go back and forth. We should not be the world police in my opinion. Nor should we try force our ideals on other countries and cultures.

On the other hand, I also understand we are a global society today more than ever. If Syria goes unchecked, then so does Iran, so does North Korea, Pakistan and so forth. And sooner or later the US will have to deal with a real threat from one of these countries because their power and influence and military will grow if unchecked.

As for me currently, I'm back, not forth. We have had too much war in recent memory. Unfortunately for the victims, I don't think the US should intervene in this situation.

I feel like we have a decent sized Syrian population in Jax. I know a bunch anyway. I'd be curious to hear a Syrian-American view on it. 

That would be interesting to know.  If you can ask anyone, please let us know their feelings.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 01:53:38 PM

Quote from: Apache on August 30, 2013, 01:26:31 PM
Unfortunately, these are very hard decisions to make in reality. I go back and forth. We should not be the world police in my opinion. Nor should we try force our ideals on other countries and cultures.

On the other hand, I also understand we are a global society today more than ever. If Syria goes unchecked, then so does Iran, so does North Korea, Pakistan and so forth. And sooner or later the US will have to deal with a real threat from one of these countries because their power and influence and military will grow if unchecked.

As for me currently, I'm back, not forth. We have had too much war in recent memory. Unfortunately for the victims, I don't think the US should intervene in this situation.

I feel like we have a decent sized Syrian population in Jax. I know a bunch anyway. I'd be curious to hear a Syrian-American view on it. 

That would be interesting to know.  If you can ask anyone, please let us know their feelings.

Yes we need everybody in the World to agree before Syria pays for killing 1,429 people with chemical weapons on August 21 2013?

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 01:53:38 PM

Quote from: Apache on August 30, 2013, 01:26:31 PM
Unfortunately, these are very hard decisions to make in reality. I go back and forth. We should not be the world police in my opinion. Nor should we try force our ideals on other countries and cultures.

On the other hand, I also understand we are a global society today more than ever. If Syria goes unchecked, then so does Iran, so does North Korea, Pakistan and so forth. And sooner or later the US will have to deal with a real threat from one of these countries because their power and influence and military will grow if unchecked.

As for me currently, I'm back, not forth. We have had too much war in recent memory. Unfortunately for the victims, I don't think the US should intervene in this situation.

I feel like we have a decent sized Syrian population in Jax. I know a bunch anyway. I'd be curious to hear a Syrian-American view on it. 

That would be interesting to know.  If you can ask anyone, please let us know their feelings.

I was driving up Beach Blvd yesterday evening and there was a decent sized group of Syrians outside the Salaam Club holding signs opposing US involvement in Syria.  Apparently there was a group downtown as well yesterday. 
http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/syrians-jacksonville-rally-against-us-intervention/nZghY/

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 01:29:34 PM
Poll: 67% of Israeli Jews support US attack against Syria

Israel Hayom survey conducted by New Wave Research shows that almost same percentage (66.8%) believe such an attack would drag Israel into war • 57% think IDF will act against specific targets or threats • Over 71% of those questioned have gas masks.

Israel is perhaps the only Western country where there is widespread support for an American/European attack on Syria. While in the United States and Great Britain, some 90 percent of the publics are opposed to such an attack -- in Israel, more than 66% of the Jewish Hebrew-speaking population supports an attack (only 17% opposes). With that, the exact same percentage of the population is concerned that if such an attack occurs, Israel will be drawn into a war.

This duality, which characterizes the Israeli mood and public discourse in recent weeks, receives statistical affirmation in an Israel Hayom survey conducted by New Wave Research.

Israelis believe that ultimately an attack against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime will take place -- close to 73% of Israelis believe so. More than 57% believe if the U.S. attacks Syria, the Israel Defense Forces will act against specific targets or threats. Only 13% think that the situation will deteriorate into all-out war in the Middle East. Over 28.7% said they are not concerned that a U.S. attack will drag Israel into a war.

The survey also found that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has clear advantage over his political rivals as the person most qualified to lead the country: 54% said he is best suited for the job, compared to Opposition Leader and Labor Chairwoman Shelly Yachimovich (9.2%), Habayit Hayehudi Chairman Naftali Bennet (8.6%) and Yesh Atid Chairman Yair Lapid (3%). One quarter of the respondents said they were undecided.

Another statistic of note coming from the survey is that over 71% of those questioned have equipped themselves with a gas mask. Of those who still have not, some 25% said they intended to do so in the coming days (some 7% of all those polled). 37% said they do not intend to get gas masks (some 10% of all those polled), and the same percentage said they have not yet decided.

The survey was conducted on August 28, and is comprised of a random pool of 500 Jewish Hebrew speaking Israelis over the age of 18. There is a margin of error of 4.4 percent.
http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/toolbar.html

I guess all of your last posts and visuals are meant to show everyone that first we don't need the U.N. to go after Syria.  That's true, however I did not say we did, I said the U.N. should decide as a global community what action if any they wish to take in Syria.   Next the awful photo's and death count.  War kills.  Who knew?  People in countries across the world struggle to fight oppressive governments.  This has always been an historic reality.  Remember the Civil War here in the U.S.?  You know that North/South thing.  It was horrific but it was created here by internal conflict and ended here by our own people at a very high cost.  We grew through it and I would like to think are better for it. Our freedoms were hard won by us.

Again to the chemical weapons issue.  There is no proof as to who used the weapons, none.  Just an idea of who did.  How in the world can we decide to bomb a people based on a supposition claiming that to kill with chemical weapons is reprehensible but to likely kill innocents or perhaps even target people for an action that has not been proved they were responsible for is the thing to do? It is still killing and there is always some collateral damage in human life. "Collateral damage",  a term I abhor by the way.  Whose precious loved ones get to be viewed as collateral and their lives worth losing?  All lives are sacred.  Anyone who thinks this is okay should hold in their minds the picture of the person or persons they love most in the world and ask themselves to imagine that person being blown to bits because, aw heck, they were just collateral damage. Human are never collateral to anything in war. 

Finally, I don't give a darn how many folks in Israel agree with going after Syria.  That has nothing to do with what American might think and any action we should take.

Apache, in recent history our world has seen and continues to see atrocities of all types.  Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia for example, rampant murder of innocents in Darfur and the list goes on.  The U.S. took no offensive action in these cases and millions died.  The fact of the matter is we cannot police the world and when we do, who we go after seems to be a selective process often based in politics.

IILU, you did not answer my question earlier which was, "If you were face to face with Jesus, how would you explain the loss of innocent lives that will come about if Syria was attacked by America or any other group"?  I am interested to know how folks can claim to love a God or Jesus on one hand and decide on the other that the potential loss of innocent lives, children, elderly, men and women is okay.  How does that work exactly?

Quote from: carpnter on August 30, 2013, 02:06:38 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 01:53:38 PM

Quote from: Apache on August 30, 2013, 01:26:31 PM
Unfortunately, these are very hard decisions to make in reality. I go back and forth. We should not be the world police in my opinion. Nor should we try force our ideals on other countries and cultures.

On the other hand, I also understand we are a global society today more than ever. If Syria goes unchecked, then so does Iran, so does North Korea, Pakistan and so forth. And sooner or later the US will have to deal with a real threat from one of these countries because their power and influence and military will grow if unchecked.

As for me currently, I'm back, not forth. We have had too much war in recent memory. Unfortunately for the victims, I don't think the US should intervene in this situation.

I feel like we have a decent sized Syrian population in Jax. I know a bunch anyway. I'd be curious to hear a Syrian-American view on it. 

That would be interesting to know.  If you can ask anyone, please let us know their feelings.

I was driving up Beach Blvd yesterday evening and there was a decent sized group of Syrians outside the Salaam Club holding signs opposing US involvement in Syria.  Apparently there was a group downtown as well yesterday. 
http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/syrians-jacksonville-rally-against-us-intervention/nZghY/

Thank you for this carpenter.  I expected as much.  They get the fact that missile strikes will not end the problem. 

Apache I'm not talking about sending troops in? We could bomb all of their planes. Just today in Syria one of their planes bombed a school with what a BBC reporter at the scene estimated the bomb contained either a napalm type explosive or thermite.  http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/toolbar.html

And bombing those planes is going to stop them from using chemical weapons on people?   Really?  Someone "estimated" a bomb contained napalm?  Estimated?  We bomb based on that assumption?

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 02:10:12 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 01:29:34 PM
Poll: 67% of Israeli Jews support US attack against Syria

Israel Hayom survey conducted by New Wave Research shows that almost same percentage (66.8%) believe such an attack would drag Israel into war • 57% think IDF will act against specific targets or threats • Over 71% of those questioned have gas masks.

Israel is perhaps the only Western country where there is widespread support for an American/European attack on Syria. While in the United States and Great Britain, some 90 percent of the publics are opposed to such an attack -- in Israel, more than 66% of the Jewish Hebrew-speaking population supports an attack (only 17% opposes). With that, the exact same percentage of the population is concerned that if such an attack occurs, Israel will be drawn into a war.

This duality, which characterizes the Israeli mood and public discourse in recent weeks, receives statistical affirmation in an Israel Hayom survey conducted by New Wave Research.

Israelis believe that ultimately an attack against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime will take place -- close to 73% of Israelis believe so. More than 57% believe if the U.S. attacks Syria, the Israel Defense Forces will act against specific targets or threats. Only 13% think that the situation will deteriorate into all-out war in the Middle East. Over 28.7% said they are not concerned that a U.S. attack will drag Israel into a war.

The survey also found that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has clear advantage over his political rivals as the person most qualified to lead the country: 54% said he is best suited for the job, compared to Opposition Leader and Labor Chairwoman Shelly Yachimovich (9.2%), Habayit Hayehudi Chairman Naftali Bennet (8.6%) and Yesh Atid Chairman Yair Lapid (3%). One quarter of the respondents said they were undecided.

Another statistic of note coming from the survey is that over 71% of those questioned have equipped themselves with a gas mask. Of those who still have not, some 25% said they intended to do so in the coming days (some 7% of all those polled). 37% said they do not intend to get gas masks (some 10% of all those polled), and the same percentage said they have not yet decided.

The survey was conducted on August 28, and is comprised of a random pool of 500 Jewish Hebrew speaking Israelis over the age of 18. There is a margin of error of 4.4 percent.
http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/toolbar.html

I guess all of your last posts and visuals are meant to show everyone that first we don't need the U.N. to go after Syria.  That's true, however I did not say we did, I said the U.N. should decide as a global community what action if any they wish to take in Syria.   Next the awful photo's and death count.  War kills.  Who knew?  People in countries across the world struggle to fight oppressive governments.  This has always been an historic reality.  Remember the Civil War here in the U.S.?  You know that North, South thing.  It was horrific but it was created here by internal conflict and ended here by our own people at a very high cost.  We grew through it and I would like to think are better for it.  Our freedoms were hard won by us.  Again to the chemical weapons issue.  There is no proof as to who used the weapons, none.  Just an idea of who did.  How in the world can we decide to bomb a people based on a supposition claiming that to kill with chemical weapons is reprehensible but to likely kill innocents or perhaps even target people for an action that has not been proved they were responsible for is still killing and there is always some collateral damage in human life? "Collateral damage"  a term I abhor by the way.  Whose precious loved ones get to be viewed as collateral and their lives worth losing?  All lives are sacred.  Anyone who thinks this is okay should hold in their minds the picture of the person or persons they love most in the world and ask themselves to imagine that person being blown to bits because, aw heck, they were just collateral damage. Human are never collateral to anything in war. 
Finally, I don't give a darn how many folks in Israel agree with going after Syria.  That has nothing to do with what American might think and any action we should take.

Apache, in recent history our world has seen and continues to see atrocities of all types.  Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia for example, rampant murder of innocents in Darfur and the list goes on.  The U.S. took no offensive action in these cases and millions died.  The fact of the matter is we cannot police the world and when we do, who we go after seems to be a selective process often based in politics.

IILU, you did not answer my question earlier which was, "If you were face to face with Jesus, how would you explain the loss of innocent lives that will come about if Syria was attacked by America or any other group"?  I am interested to know how folks can claim to love a God or Jesus on one hand and decide on the other that the potential loss of innocent lives, children, elderly, men and women is okay.  How does that work exactly?

(ILU, you did not answer my question earlier which was, "If you were face to face with Jesus, how would you explain the loss of innocent lives that will come about if Syria was attacked by America or any other group"?  I am interested to know how folks can claim to love a God or Jesus on one hand and decide on the other that the potential loss of innocent lives, children, elderly, men and women is okay.  How does that work exactly?) I did answer you besides you have no right to Judge Me you don't even know me. :)

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 02:25:44 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 02:10:12 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 01:29:34 PM
Poll: 67% of Israeli Jews support US attack against Syria

Israel Hayom survey conducted by New Wave Research shows that almost same percentage (66.8%) believe such an attack would drag Israel into war • 57% think IDF will act against specific targets or threats • Over 71% of those questioned have gas masks.

Israel is perhaps the only Western country where there is widespread support for an American/European attack on Syria. While in the United States and Great Britain, some 90 percent of the publics are opposed to such an attack -- in Israel, more than 66% of the Jewish Hebrew-speaking population supports an attack (only 17% opposes). With that, the exact same percentage of the population is concerned that if such an attack occurs, Israel will be drawn into a war.

This duality, which characterizes the Israeli mood and public discourse in recent weeks, receives statistical affirmation in an Israel Hayom survey conducted by New Wave Research.

Israelis believe that ultimately an attack against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime will take place -- close to 73% of Israelis believe so. More than 57% believe if the U.S. attacks Syria, the Israel Defense Forces will act against specific targets or threats. Only 13% think that the situation will deteriorate into all-out war in the Middle East. Over 28.7% said they are not concerned that a U.S. attack will drag Israel into a war.

The survey also found that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has clear advantage over his political rivals as the person most qualified to lead the country: 54% said he is best suited for the job, compared to Opposition Leader and Labor Chairwoman Shelly Yachimovich (9.2%), Habayit Hayehudi Chairman Naftali Bennet (8.6%) and Yesh Atid Chairman Yair Lapid (3%). One quarter of the respondents said they were undecided.

Another statistic of note coming from the survey is that over 71% of those questioned have equipped themselves with a gas mask. Of those who still have not, some 25% said they intended to do so in the coming days (some 7% of all those polled). 37% said they do not intend to get gas masks (some 10% of all those polled), and the same percentage said they have not yet decided.

The survey was conducted on August 28, and is comprised of a random pool of 500 Jewish Hebrew speaking Israelis over the age of 18. There is a margin of error of 4.4 percent.
http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/toolbar.html

I guess all of your last posts and visuals are meant to show everyone that first we don't need the U.N. to go after Syria.  That's true, however I did not say we did, I said the U.N. should decide as a global community what action if any they wish to take in Syria.   Next the awful photo's and death count.  War kills.  Who knew?  People in countries across the world struggle to fight oppressive governments.  This has always been an historic reality.  Remember the Civil War here in the U.S.?  You know that North, South thing.  It was horrific but it was created here by internal conflict and ended here by our own people at a very high cost.  We grew through it and I would like to think are better for it.  Our freedoms were hard won by us.  Again to the chemical weapons issue.  There is no proof as to who used the weapons, none.  Just an idea of who did.  How in the world can we decide to bomb a people based on a supposition claiming that to kill with chemical weapons is reprehensible but to likely kill innocents or perhaps even target people for an action that has not been proved they were responsible for is still killing and there is always some collateral damage in human life? "Collateral damage"  a term I abhor by the way.  Whose precious loved ones get to be viewed as collateral and their lives worth losing?  All lives are sacred.  Anyone who thinks this is okay should hold in their minds the picture of the person or persons they love most in the world and ask themselves to imagine that person being blown to bits because, aw heck, they were just collateral damage. Human are never collateral to anything in war. 
Finally, I don't give a darn how many folks in Israel agree with going after Syria.  That has nothing to do with what American might think and any action we should take.

Apache, in recent history our world has seen and continues to see atrocities of all types.  Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia for example, rampant murder of innocents in Darfur and the list goes on.  The U.S. took no offensive action in these cases and millions died.  The fact of the matter is we cannot police the world and when we do, who we go after seems to be a selective process often based in politics.

IILU, you did not answer my question earlier which was, "If you were face to face with Jesus, how would you explain the loss of innocent lives that will come about if Syria was attacked by America or any other group"?  I am interested to know how folks can claim to love a God or Jesus on one hand and decide on the other that the potential loss of innocent lives, children, elderly, men and women is okay.  How does that work exactly?

(ILU, you did not answer my question earlier which was, "If you were face to face with Jesus, how would you explain the loss of innocent lives that will come about if Syria was attacked by America or any other group"?  I am interested to know how folks can claim to love a God or Jesus on one hand and decide on the other that the potential loss of innocent lives, children, elderly, men and women is okay.  How does that work exactly?) I did answer you besides you have no right to Judge Me you don't even know me. :)

Judge you?  I am not judging you.  I am asking a reasonable question of a person who is always talking about how "God" loves everyone, how "Jesus" loves everyone and regularly takes pot shot's at non believers while posting scripture and talking about how they would "love" to use missiles on people in a foreign land.  Perhaps your response about judging you is an effort of deflect the question, which was sincere.  How do you square the killing of people with the teachings of Jesus you so often refer to?  I seem to remember him saying something about "Love thy neighbor as thyself". Perhaps I am mistaken?

To the "assumed use of napalm".  What reprehensible, horrible type of people could do such a thing?  Let's kill em all, they are criminals.

What about this truth in history?  We are not a perfect people, have never been and we need to think about our own actions when looking at what disgusts us around the world.

QuoteNapalm bombs first employed in incendiary bombs and went on to be used as fuel for flamethrowers.[10]
The first recorded strategic use of napalm incendiary bombs occurred in an attack by the USAAF on Berlin on 6 March 1944, using American AN-M76 incendiary bombs (with PT-1 (Pyrogel) filler).[11][12] The second known attack, this time a tactical operation by De Havilland D.H.98 Mosquito FB Mk.VIs of No. 140 Wing RAF, Second Tactical Air Force on 14 July 1944, also employed the AM-M76 incendiary in a reprisal attack on the 17th SS Panzergrenadier Division ,,Götz von Berlichingen" in Bonneuil-Matours; soldiers of this Waffen SS unit had captured and then murdered a British SAS prisoner-of-war, Lt. Tomos Stephens, taking part in Operation Bulbasket, and seven local Resistance fighters; although it was not known at the time of the air strike, 31 other POWs from the same SAS unit, and an American airman who had joined up with the SAS unit, had also been executed.[13]
further use of napalm by American forces occurred in the Pacific Theater of Operations, where in 1944 and 1945, napalm was used as a tactical weapon against Japanese bunkers, pillboxes, tunnels, and other fortifications, especially on Saipan, Iwo Jima, the Philippines, and Okinawa, where deeply dug-in Japanese troops refused to surrender. Napalm bombs were dropped by aviators of the U.S. Navy, the United States Army Air Forces, and the U.S. Marine Corps in support of their ground troops.[14]
Then, when the U.S. Army Air Forces on the Marianas Islands ran out of conventional thermite incendiary bombs for its B-29 Superfortresses to drop on Japanese cities, its top commanders, such as General Curtis E. LeMay, turned to napalm bombs to continue its fire raids on the large Japanese cities.[15]
In the European Theater of Operations napalm was used by American forces[16] in the siege of La Rochelle in April 1945 against German soldiers (and inadvertently French civilians in Royan) - about two weeks before the end of the war.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 02:30:16 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 02:25:44 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 02:10:12 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 01:29:34 PM
Poll: 67% of Israeli Jews support US attack against Syria

Israel Hayom survey conducted by New Wave Research shows that almost same percentage (66.8%) believe such an attack would drag Israel into war • 57% think IDF will act against specific targets or threats • Over 71% of those questioned have gas masks.

Israel is perhaps the only Western country where there is widespread support for an American/European attack on Syria. While in the United States and Great Britain, some 90 percent of the publics are opposed to such an attack -- in Israel, more than 66% of the Jewish Hebrew-speaking population supports an attack (only 17% opposes). With that, the exact same percentage of the population is concerned that if such an attack occurs, Israel will be drawn into a war.

This duality, which characterizes the Israeli mood and public discourse in recent weeks, receives statistical affirmation in an Israel Hayom survey conducted by New Wave Research.

Israelis believe that ultimately an attack against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime will take place -- close to 73% of Israelis believe so. More than 57% believe if the U.S. attacks Syria, the Israel Defense Forces will act against specific targets or threats. Only 13% think that the situation will deteriorate into all-out war in the Middle East. Over 28.7% said they are not concerned that a U.S. attack will drag Israel into a war.

The survey also found that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has clear advantage over his political rivals as the person most qualified to lead the country: 54% said he is best suited for the job, compared to Opposition Leader and Labor Chairwoman Shelly Yachimovich (9.2%), Habayit Hayehudi Chairman Naftali Bennet (8.6%) and Yesh Atid Chairman Yair Lapid (3%). One quarter of the respondents said they were undecided.

Another statistic of note coming from the survey is that over 71% of those questioned have equipped themselves with a gas mask. Of those who still have not, some 25% said they intended to do so in the coming days (some 7% of all those polled). 37% said they do not intend to get gas masks (some 10% of all those polled), and the same percentage said they have not yet decided.

The survey was conducted on August 28, and is comprised of a random pool of 500 Jewish Hebrew speaking Israelis over the age of 18. There is a margin of error of 4.4 percent.
http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/toolbar.html

I guess all of your last posts and visuals are meant to show everyone that first we don't need the U.N. to go after Syria.  That's true, however I did not say we did, I said the U.N. should decide as a global community what action if any they wish to take in Syria.   Next the awful photo's and death count.  War kills.  Who knew?  People in countries across the world struggle to fight oppressive governments.  This has always been an historic reality.  Remember the Civil War here in the U.S.?  You know that North, South thing.  It was horrific but it was created here by internal conflict and ended here by our own people at a very high cost.  We grew through it and I would like to think are better for it.  Our freedoms were hard won by us.  Again to the chemical weapons issue.  There is no proof as to who used the weapons, none.  Just an idea of who did.  How in the world can we decide to bomb a people based on a supposition claiming that to kill with chemical weapons is reprehensible but to likely kill innocents or perhaps even target people for an action that has not been proved they were responsible for is still killing and there is always some collateral damage in human life? "Collateral damage"  a term I abhor by the way.  Whose precious loved ones get to be viewed as collateral and their lives worth losing?  All lives are sacred.  Anyone who thinks this is okay should hold in their minds the picture of the person or persons they love most in the world and ask themselves to imagine that person being blown to bits because, aw heck, they were just collateral damage. Human are never collateral to anything in war. 
Finally, I don't give a darn how many folks in Israel agree with going after Syria.  That has nothing to do with what American might think and any action we should take.

Apache, in recent history our world has seen and continues to see atrocities of all types.  Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia for example, rampant murder of innocents in Darfur and the list goes on.  The U.S. took no offensive action in these cases and millions died.  The fact of the matter is we cannot police the world and when we do, who we go after seems to be a selective process often based in politics.

IILU, you did not answer my question earlier which was, "If you were face to face with Jesus, how would you explain the loss of innocent lives that will come about if Syria was attacked by America or any other group"?  I am interested to know how folks can claim to love a God or Jesus on one hand and decide on the other that the potential loss of innocent lives, children, elderly, men and women is okay.  How does that work exactly?

(ILU, you did not answer my question earlier which was, "If you were face to face with Jesus, how would you explain the loss of innocent lives that will come about if Syria was attacked by America or any other group"?  I am interested to know how folks can claim to love a God or Jesus on one hand and decide on the other that the potential loss of innocent lives, children, elderly, men and women is okay.  How does that work exactly?) I did answer you besides you have no right to Judge Me you don't even know me. :)

Judge you?  I am not judging you.  I am asking a reasonable question of a person who is always talking about how "God" loves everyone, how "Jesus" loves everyone and regularly takes pot shot's at non believers while posting scripture and talking about how they would "love" to use missiles on people in a foreign land.  Perhaps your response about judging you is an effort of deflect the question, which was sincere.  How do you square the killing of people with the teaches of Jesus?  I seem to remember him saying something about "Love thy neighbor as thyself".

God loves everyone who loves God what don't you understand Diane? I'm not deflecting the question. Besides no madder what I say you will debate it till the cows come home. You go ahead and believe what you want Diane and I will believe what I want. And when I Die one day only then will I have to face what I did in my life to God aka Jesus! Amen! :)

Okay then IILU.  Amen is your answer, I get it.  You cannot answer the question put to you which in your heart you already know the answer to. The man Jesus you revere and speak about all of the time, would very likely not support your view that it's just fine to use deadly force against a people, any people and especially without proof of their direct guilt of anything. I don't think blowing up anyone with a bomb comes close to "loving thy neighbor".  Perhaps that is just my faulty interpretation of the statement. 

Let me make something clear, for me this is not about arguing a point, it is not about blowing off steam,  it's about opening eyes to the reality of hypocrisy in it's boldest and ugliest form.  Claiming to love God in one breath and then asking for blood in another.  You made the statement that you would "love" to drop a bomb on Syria, God didn't, you did, so don't claim that this is a spiritual mystery.  This is also about recognizing and working through the hypocrisy we sometimes embrace as a nation when it comes to armed combat.  Currently our leadership claims  to abhor the use of chemical weapons and that is grounds for an armed attack when the reality is that we ourselves have unleashed the self same monster called chemical weapons on people over and over again in the name of war. 

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 02:33:04 PM
To the "assumed use of napalm".  What reprehensible, horrible type of people could do such a thing?  Let's kill em all, they are criminals.

What about this truth in history?  We are not a perfect people, have never been and we need to think about our own actions when looking at what disgusts us around the world.

QuoteNapalm bombs first employed in incendiary bombs and went on to be used as fuel for flamethrowers.[10]
The first recorded strategic use of napalm incendiary bombs occurred in an attack by the USAAF on Berlin on 6 March 1944, using American AN-M76 incendiary bombs (with PT-1 (Pyrogel) filler).[11][12] The second known attack, this time a tactical operation by De Havilland D.H.98 Mosquito FB Mk.VIs of No. 140 Wing RAF, Second Tactical Air Force on 14 July 1944, also employed the AM-M76 incendiary in a reprisal attack on the 17th SS Panzergrenadier Division ,,Götz von Berlichingen" in Bonneuil-Matours; soldiers of this Waffen SS unit had captured and then murdered a British SAS prisoner-of-war, Lt. Tomos Stephens, taking part in Operation Bulbasket, and seven local Resistance fighters; although it was not known at the time of the air strike, 31 other POWs from the same SAS unit, and an American airman who had joined up with the SAS unit, had also been executed.[13]
further use of napalm by American forces occurred in the Pacific Theater of Operations, where in 1944 and 1945, napalm was used as a tactical weapon against Japanese bunkers, pillboxes, tunnels, and other fortifications, especially on Saipan, Iwo Jima, the Philippines, and Okinawa, where deeply dug-in Japanese troops refused to surrender. Napalm bombs were dropped by aviators of the U.S. Navy, the United States Army Air Forces, and the U.S. Marine Corps in support of their ground troops.[14]
Then, when the U.S. Army Air Forces on the Marianas Islands ran out of conventional thermite incendiary bombs for its B-29 Superfortresses to drop on Japanese cities, its top commanders, such as General Curtis E. LeMay, turned to napalm bombs to continue its fire raids on the large Japanese cities.[15]
In the European Theater of Operations napalm was used by American forces[16] in the siege of La Rochelle in April 1945 against German soldiers (and inadvertently French civilians in Royan) - about two weeks before the end of the war.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm

"Take calculated risks. That is quite different from being rash."

General George S. Patton quote

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 02:55:23 PM
Okay then IILU.  Amen is your answer, I get it.  You cannot answer the question put to you which in your heart you already know the answer to. The man you revere and speak about all of the time would very likely not support your view that it's just fine to deadly force against a people, any people and especially without proof of their direct guilt of anything.   By the way this is not about arguing a point, it's about opening eyes to the reality of hypocrisy in it's boldest form.  Claiming to love God and ask for blood on one hand and then as a nation claiming to abhor the use of chemical weapons when we ourselves have unleashed the self same monster on people over and over again in the name of war.

I do love God Diane but his love is what I feel in my heart. War is Hell but it is something we have done since the beginning of time. You make some good points Diane and others have me puzzled? But we have taken this as far as we can. Good Luck in changing others to your way of thinking.  ;)

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 02:55:31 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 02:33:04 PM
To the "assumed use of napalm".  What reprehensible, horrible type of people could do such a thing?  Let's kill em all, they are criminals.

What about this truth in history?  We are not a perfect people, have never been and we need to think about our own actions when looking at what disgusts us around the world.

QuoteNapalm bombs first employed in incendiary bombs and went on to be used as fuel for flamethrowers.[10]
The first recorded strategic use of napalm incendiary bombs occurred in an attack by the USAAF on Berlin on 6 March 1944, using American AN-M76 incendiary bombs (with PT-1 (Pyrogel) filler).[11][12] The second known attack, this time a tactical operation by De Havilland D.H.98 Mosquito FB Mk.VIs of No. 140 Wing RAF, Second Tactical Air Force on 14 July 1944, also employed the AM-M76 incendiary in a reprisal attack on the 17th SS Panzergrenadier Division ,,Götz von Berlichingen" in Bonneuil-Matours; soldiers of this Waffen SS unit had captured and then murdered a British SAS prisoner-of-war, Lt. Tomos Stephens, taking part in Operation Bulbasket, and seven local Resistance fighters; although it was not known at the time of the air strike, 31 other POWs from the same SAS unit, and an American airman who had joined up with the SAS unit, had also been executed.[13]
further use of napalm by American forces occurred in the Pacific Theater of Operations, where in 1944 and 1945, napalm was used as a tactical weapon against Japanese bunkers, pillboxes, tunnels, and other fortifications, especially on Saipan, Iwo Jima, the Philippines, and Okinawa, where deeply dug-in Japanese troops refused to surrender. Napalm bombs were dropped by aviators of the U.S. Navy, the United States Army Air Forces, and the U.S. Marine Corps in support of their ground troops.[14]
Then, when the U.S. Army Air Forces on the Marianas Islands ran out of conventional thermite incendiary bombs for its B-29 Superfortresses to drop on Japanese cities, its top commanders, such as General Curtis E. LeMay, turned to napalm bombs to continue its fire raids on the large Japanese cities.[15]
In the European Theater of Operations napalm was used by American forces[16] in the siege of La Rochelle in April 1945 against German soldiers (and inadvertently French civilians in Royan) - about two weeks before the end of the war.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm

"Take calculated risks. That is quite different from being rash."

General George S. Patton quote

Calculated risk is the answer now?  You better pray a little harder for clarity IILU.  You do understand that calculated risk, translates to the likely hood that innocent people will be killed and the possibility that the deadly attack will not solve the problem.  Whose life is collateral in conflict when all life is sacred?

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 02:59:49 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 02:55:23 PM
Okay then IILU.  Amen is your answer, I get it.  You cannot answer the question put to you which in your heart you already know the answer to. The man you revere and speak about all of the time would very likely not support your view that it's just fine to deadly force against a people, any people and especially without proof of their direct guilt of anything.   By the way this is not about arguing a point, it's about opening eyes to the reality of hypocrisy in it's boldest form.  Claiming to love God and ask for blood on one hand and then as a nation claiming to abhor the use of chemical weapons when we ourselves have unleashed the self same monster on people over and over again in the name of war.

I do love God Diane but his love is what I feel in my heart. War is Hell but it is something we have done since the beginning of time. You make some good points Diane and others have me puzzled? But we have taken this as far as we can. Good Luck in changing others to your way of thinking.  ;)

I think we have taken this as far as you are willing to go because the truth is that war is more than hell and that humanity and America has got to change our thinking about the when and where of the use of deadly force especially when it comes to conflicts that our involvement in will not create a lasting resolution to.  In our one on one exchange I was looking for some clarity of the thinking of an individual who parades behind the words of God as loving while at the same time would love to bomb folks in another country.   I have the answer I do believe which is there is "no clarity of thought" and a good deal of justification for violent retribution.  Love they neighbor as thyself be damned I guess if there is want of blood.  ;)

I don't believe the US should enter another armed conflict this soon when we still have boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, there is a long history of our government engaging in conflicts that do not directly effect us as a united nation. For those that simply say it isn't our place, what is the best time? When one of our embassies is directly attacked? When an attack occurs from another on our own land? And even more important, how do you know when the best time is? How can one of us even begin to think about the actions of our military without first knowing the exact facts surrounding the situation? Which, unless someone is currently employed by the Pentagon, White House or one of the beltway agencies, none of us truly know the full picture. We elected a person to serve as the Chief Commander of our Armed Forces, and even if we didn't individually elect that person, once that decision is made we should stand by the decision they make regardless of our personal beliefs, except if their actions are so ludicrous as to jeopardize our very way of life and even then that is why we've elected senators and congressman and have a judicial branch.

I hope that the leaders we've selected are able to find a better solution to this current situation, but if the best solution ends up being military action then so be it, may our soldiers go with our prayers and wishes for a more peaceful world and return with our sons, daughters, brothers and sisters.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 03:04:17 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 02:55:31 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 02:33:04 PM
To the "assumed use of napalm".  What reprehensible, horrible type of people could do such a thing?  Let's kill em all, they are criminals.

What about this truth in history?  We are not a perfect people, have never been and we need to think about our own actions when looking at what disgusts us around the world.

QuoteNapalm bombs first employed in incendiary bombs and went on to be used as fuel for flamethrowers.[10]
The first recorded strategic use of napalm incendiary bombs occurred in an attack by the USAAF on Berlin on 6 March 1944, using American AN-M76 incendiary bombs (with PT-1 (Pyrogel) filler).[11][12] The second known attack, this time a tactical operation by De Havilland D.H.98 Mosquito FB Mk.VIs of No. 140 Wing RAF, Second Tactical Air Force on 14 July 1944, also employed the AM-M76 incendiary in a reprisal attack on the 17th SS Panzergrenadier Division ,,Götz von Berlichingen" in Bonneuil-Matours; soldiers of this Waffen SS unit had captured and then murdered a British SAS prisoner-of-war, Lt. Tomos Stephens, taking part in Operation Bulbasket, and seven local Resistance fighters; although it was not known at the time of the air strike, 31 other POWs from the same SAS unit, and an American airman who had joined up with the SAS unit, had also been executed.[13]
further use of napalm by American forces occurred in the Pacific Theater of Operations, where in 1944 and 1945, napalm was used as a tactical weapon against Japanese bunkers, pillboxes, tunnels, and other fortifications, especially on Saipan, Iwo Jima, the Philippines, and Okinawa, where deeply dug-in Japanese troops refused to surrender. Napalm bombs were dropped by aviators of the U.S. Navy, the United States Army Air Forces, and the U.S. Marine Corps in support of their ground troops.[14]
Then, when the U.S. Army Air Forces on the Marianas Islands ran out of conventional thermite incendiary bombs for its B-29 Superfortresses to drop on Japanese cities, its top commanders, such as General Curtis E. LeMay, turned to napalm bombs to continue its fire raids on the large Japanese cities.[15]
In the European Theater of Operations napalm was used by American forces[16] in the siege of La Rochelle in April 1945 against German soldiers (and inadvertently French civilians in Royan) - about two weeks before the end of the war.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm

"Take calculated risks. That is quite different from being rash."

General George S. Patton quote

Calculated risk is the answer now?  You better pray a little harder for clarity IILU.  You do understand that calculated risk, translates to the likely hood that innocent people will be killed and the possibility that the deadly attack will not solve the problem.  Whose life is collateral in conflict when all life is sacred?

(when all life is sacred) Diane I'm Pro-Choice and a Christian does this blow your mind?

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 03:10:51 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 02:59:49 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 02:55:23 PM
Okay then IILU.  Amen is your answer, I get it.  You cannot answer the question put to you which in your heart you already know the answer to. The man you revere and speak about all of the time would very likely not support your view that it's just fine to deadly force against a people, any people and especially without proof of their direct guilt of anything.   By the way this is not about arguing a point, it's about opening eyes to the reality of hypocrisy in it's boldest form.  Claiming to love God and ask for blood on one hand and then as a nation claiming to abhor the use of chemical weapons when we ourselves have unleashed the self same monster on people over and over again in the name of war.

I do love God Diane but his love is what I feel in my heart. War is Hell but it is something we have done since the beginning of time. You make some good points Diane and others have me puzzled? But we have taken this as far as we can. Good Luck in changing others to your way of thinking.  ;)

I think we have taken this as far as you are willing to go because the truth is that war is more than hell and that humanity and America has got to change our thinking about the when and where of the use of deadly force especially when it comes to conflicts that our involvement in will not create a lasting resolution to.  In our one on one exchange I was looking for some clarity of the thinking of an individual who parades behind the words of God as loving while at the same time would love to bomb folks in another country.   I have the answer I do believe which is there is "no clarity of thought" and a good deal of justification for violent retribution.  Love they neighbor as thyself be damned I guess if there is want of blood.  ;)

Diane you don't get to change my way of thinking. So let it go.  ::)

Here is an educational piece about Syria, what is happening and why America can't change it.  See #6.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/  (click link for full story)

Quote
The United States and allies are preparing for a possibly imminent series of limited military strikes against Syria, the first direct U.S. intervention in the two-year civil war, in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad's suspected use of chemical weapons against civilians.
If you found the above sentence kind of confusing, or aren't exactly sure why Syria is fighting a civil war, or even where Syria is located, then this is the article for you. What's happening in Syria is really important, but it can also be confusing and difficult to follow even for those of us glued to it.
Here, then, are the most basic answers to your most basic questions. First, a disclaimer: Syria and its history are really complicated; this is not an exhaustive or definitive account of that entire story, just some background, written so that anyone can understand it.

Quote6. Why hasn't the United States fixed this yet?
Because it can't. There are no viable options. Sorry.
The military options are all bad. Shipping arms to rebels, even if it helps them topple Assad, would ultimately empower jihadists and worsen rebel in-fighting, probably leading to lots of chaos and possibly a second civil war (the United States made this mistake during Afghanistan's 1980s civil war, which helped the Taliban take power in the 1990s). Taking out Assad somehow would probably do the same, opening up a dangerous power vacuum. Launching air strikes or a "no fly zone" could suck us in, possibly for years, and probably wouldn't make much difference on the ground. An Iraq-style ground invasion would, in the very best outcome, accelerate the the killing, cost a lot of U.S. lives, wildly exacerbate anti-Americanism in a boon to jihadists and nationalist dictators alike, and would require the United States to impose order for years across a country full of people trying to kill each other. Nope.
The one political option, which the Obama administration has been pushing for, would be for the Assad regime and the rebels to strike a peace deal. But there's no indication that either side is interested in that, or that there's even a viable unified rebel movement with which to negotiate.
It's possible that there was a brief window for a Libya-style military intervention early on in the conflict. But we'll never really know.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 03:24:37 PM
Here is an educational piece about Syria, what is happening and why America can't change it.  See #6.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/  (click link for full story)

Quote
The United States and allies are preparing for a possibly imminent series of limited military strikes against Syria, the first direct U.S. intervention in the two-year civil war, in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad's suspected use of chemical weapons against civilians.
If you found the above sentence kind of confusing, or aren't exactly sure why Syria is fighting a civil war, or even where Syria is located, then this is the article for you. What's happening in Syria is really important, but it can also be confusing and difficult to follow even for those of us glued to it.
Here, then, are the most basic answers to your most basic questions. First, a disclaimer: Syria and its history are really complicated; this is not an exhaustive or definitive account of that entire story, just some background, written so that anyone can understand it.

From that same article, anyone who thinks we are thinking of going over there to change anything is completely wrong and they themselves are ignorant to the facts of the situation. The only reason for American action and the only reason even mentioned by Obama or his administration:

QuoteIt's true that basically no one believes that this will turn the tide of the Syrian war. But this is important: it's not supposed to. The strikes wouldn't be meant to shape the course of the war or to topple Assad, which Obama thinks would just make things worse anyway. They would be meant to punish Assad for (allegedly) using chemical weapons and to deter him, or any future military leader in any future war, from using them again.

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 03:21:34 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 03:10:51 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 02:59:49 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 02:55:23 PM
Okay then IILU.  Amen is your answer, I get it.  You cannot answer the question put to you which in your heart you already know the answer to. The man you revere and speak about all of the time would very likely not support your view that it's just fine to deadly force against a people, any people and especially without proof of their direct guilt of anything.   By the way this is not about arguing a point, it's about opening eyes to the reality of hypocrisy in it's boldest form.  Claiming to love God and ask for blood on one hand and then as a nation claiming to abhor the use of chemical weapons when we ourselves have unleashed the self same monster on people over and over again in the name of war.

I do love God Diane but his love is what I feel in my heart. War is Hell but it is something we have done since the beginning of time. You make some good points Diane and others have me puzzled? But we have taken this as far as we can. Good Luck in changing others to your way of thinking.  ;)

I think we have taken this as far as you are willing to go because the truth is that war is more than hell and that humanity and America has got to change our thinking about the when and where of the use of deadly force especially when it comes to conflicts that our involvement in will not create a lasting resolution to.  In our one on one exchange I was looking for some clarity of the thinking of an individual who parades behind the words of God as loving while at the same time would love to bomb folks in another country.   I have the answer I do believe which is there is "no clarity of thought" and a good deal of justification for violent retribution.  Love they neighbor as thyself be damned I guess if there is want of blood.  ;)

Diane you don't get to change my way of thinking. So let it go.  ::)

IILU, I am not trying to change your thinking at all.  I know you are where you want or need to be and that is fine with me.  However, when you chose to comment about the conflict in Syria and in view of your want to constantly frame your discussions in the love of "God", "Jesus" or "Christianity" I was sincerely wondering how you "square" the idea of attacking, bombing and killing in the light of the teachings of Christ you so often quote.  Apparently you can't and I have my answer. 

Quote from: JayBird on August 30, 2013, 03:29:42 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 03:24:37 PM
Here is an educational piece about Syria, what is happening and why America can't change it.  See #6.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/  (click link for full story)

Quote
The United States and allies are preparing for a possibly imminent series of limited military strikes against Syria, the first direct U.S. intervention in the two-year civil war, in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad's suspected use of chemical weapons against civilians.
If you found the above sentence kind of confusing, or aren't exactly sure why Syria is fighting a civil war, or even where Syria is located, then this is the article for you. What's happening in Syria is really important, but it can also be confusing and difficult to follow even for those of us glued to it.
Here, then, are the most basic answers to your most basic questions. First, a disclaimer: Syria and its history are really complicated; this is not an exhaustive or definitive account of that entire story, just some background, written so that anyone can understand it.

From that same article, anyone who thinks we are thinking of going over there to change anything is completely wrong and they themselves are ignorant to the facts of the situation. The only reason for American action and the only reason even mentioned by Obama or his administration:

QuoteIt's true that basically no one believes that this will turn the tide of the Syrian war. But this is important: it's not supposed to. The strikes wouldn't be meant to shape the course of the war or to topple Assad, which Obama thinks would just make things worse anyway. They would be meant to punish Assad for (allegedly) using chemical weapons and to deter him, or any future military leader in any future war, from using them again.

Exactly.  What IILU and I am guessing other readers may not get is that I am trying to overlay the hopes with the realities when it comes to U.S. involvement (it won't change things) and then overlay that with the morality of our involvement and the insistence that this is not a place to spill the blood of American Troops or to add to the death of innocent civilians. 

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 03:33:02 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 03:21:34 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 03:10:51 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 02:59:49 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 02:55:23 PM
Okay then IILU.  Amen is your answer, I get it.  You cannot answer the question put to you which in your heart you already know the answer to. The man you revere and speak about all of the time would very likely not support your view that it's just fine to deadly force against a people, any people and especially without proof of their direct guilt of anything.   By the way this is not about arguing a point, it's about opening eyes to the reality of hypocrisy in it's boldest form.  Claiming to love God and ask for blood on one hand and then as a nation claiming to abhor the use of chemical weapons when we ourselves have unleashed the self same monster on people over and over again in the name of war.

I do love God Diane but his love is what I feel in my heart. War is Hell but it is something we have done since the beginning of time. You make some good points Diane and others have me puzzled? But we have taken this as far as we can. Good Luck in changing others to your way of thinking.  ;)

I think we have taken this as far as you are willing to go because the truth is that war is more than hell and that humanity and America has got to change our thinking about the when and where of the use of deadly force especially when it comes to conflicts that our involvement in will not create a lasting resolution to.  In our one on one exchange I was looking for some clarity of the thinking of an individual who parades behind the words of God as loving while at the same time would love to bomb folks in another country.   I have the answer I do believe which is there is "no clarity of thought" and a good deal of justification for violent retribution.  Love they neighbor as thyself be damned I guess if there is want of blood.  ;)

Diane you don't get to change my way of thinking. So let it go.  ::)

IILU, I am not trying to change your thinking at all.  I know you are where you want or need to be and that is fine with me.  However, when you chose to comment about the conflict in Syria and in view of your want to constantly frame your discussions in the love of "God", "Jesus" or "Christianity" I was sincerely wondering how you "square" the idea of attacking, bombing and killing in the light of the teachings of Christ you so often quote.  Apparently you can't and I have my answer.

Well then Diane when I have any problems in life I should ask for your opinion only. And I still believe you love to Judge people since I can't give you the answer you so want. I read that Washington Post piece and it still doesn't change my mind on sending Syria a couple of reminders that if they want to take it up a notch. Some people in the World have the balls to say NO!

For those who would like to email the President with your thought's about any military involvement in Syria, here is the link to do so.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 03:40:52 PM
For those who would like to email the President with your thought's about any military involvement in Syria, here is the link to do so.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

I gave him my blessing. :)

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 03:39:37 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 03:33:02 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 03:21:34 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 03:10:51 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 02:59:49 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 02:55:23 PM
Okay then IILU.  Amen is your answer, I get it.  You cannot answer the question put to you which in your heart you already know the answer to. The man you revere and speak about all of the time would very likely not support your view that it's just fine to deadly force against a people, any people and especially without proof of their direct guilt of anything.   By the way this is not about arguing a point, it's about opening eyes to the reality of hypocrisy in it's boldest form.  Claiming to love God and ask for blood on one hand and then as a nation claiming to abhor the use of chemical weapons when we ourselves have unleashed the self same monster on people over and over again in the name of war.

I do love God Diane but his love is what I feel in my heart. War is Hell but it is something we have done since the beginning of time. You make some good points Diane and others have me puzzled? But we have taken this as far as we can. Good Luck in changing others to your way of thinking.  ;)

I think we have taken this as far as you are willing to go because the truth is that war is more than hell and that humanity and America has got to change our thinking about the when and where of the use of deadly force especially when it comes to conflicts that our involvement in will not create a lasting resolution to.  In our one on one exchange I was looking for some clarity of the thinking of an individual who parades behind the words of God as loving while at the same time would love to bomb folks in another country.   I have the answer I do believe which is there is "no clarity of thought" and a good deal of justification for violent retribution.  Love they neighbor as thyself be damned I guess if there is want of blood.  ;)

Diane you don't get to change my way of thinking. So let it go.  ::)

IILU, I am not trying to change your thinking at all.  I know you are where you want or need to be and that is fine with me.  However, when you chose to comment about the conflict in Syria and in view of your want to constantly frame your discussions in the love of "God", "Jesus" or "Christianity" I was sincerely wondering how you "square" the idea of attacking, bombing and killing in the light of the teachings of Christ you so often quote.  Apparently you can't and I have my answer.

Well then Diane when I have any problems in life I should ask for your opinion only. And I still believe you love to Judge people since I can't give you the answer you so want. I read that Washington Post piece and it still doesn't change my mind on sending Syria a couple of reminders that if they want to take it up a notch. Some people in the World has the balls to say NO!

Okay IILU continue to ponder those with balls.  lol  I am done with my exchange with you at this time.  ;)

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 03:41:56 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 03:39:37 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 03:33:02 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 03:21:34 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 03:10:51 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 02:59:49 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 02:55:23 PM
Okay then IILU.  Amen is your answer, I get it.  You cannot answer the question put to you which in your heart you already know the answer to. The man you revere and speak about all of the time would very likely not support your view that it's just fine to deadly force against a people, any people and especially without proof of their direct guilt of anything.   By the way this is not about arguing a point, it's about opening eyes to the reality of hypocrisy in it's boldest form.  Claiming to love God and ask for blood on one hand and then as a nation claiming to abhor the use of chemical weapons when we ourselves have unleashed the self same monster on people over and over again in the name of war.

I do love God Diane but his love is what I feel in my heart. War is Hell but it is something we have done since the beginning of time. You make some good points Diane and others have me puzzled? But we have taken this as far as we can. Good Luck in changing others to your way of thinking.  ;)

I think we have taken this as far as you are willing to go because the truth is that war is more than hell and that humanity and America has got to change our thinking about the when and where of the use of deadly force especially when it comes to conflicts that our involvement in will not create a lasting resolution to.  In our one on one exchange I was looking for some clarity of the thinking of an individual who parades behind the words of God as loving while at the same time would love to bomb folks in another country.   I have the answer I do believe which is there is "no clarity of thought" and a good deal of justification for violent retribution.  Love they neighbor as thyself be damned I guess if there is want of blood.  ;)

Diane you don't get to change my way of thinking. So let it go.  ::)

IILU, I am not trying to change your thinking at all.  I know you are where you want or need to be and that is fine with me.  However, when you chose to comment about the conflict in Syria and in view of your want to constantly frame your discussions in the love of "God", "Jesus" or "Christianity" I was sincerely wondering how you "square" the idea of attacking, bombing and killing in the light of the teachings of Christ you so often quote.  Apparently you can't and I have my answer.

Well then Diane when I have any problems in life I should ask for your opinion only. And I still believe you love to Judge people since I can't give you the answer you so want. I read that Washington Post piece and it still doesn't change my mind on sending Syria a couple of reminders that if they want to take it up a notch. Some people in the World has the balls to say NO!

Okay IILU continue to ponder those with balls.  lol  I am done with my exchange with you at this time.  ;)

Thanks  ;D

The moral act is such a tricky sticky maze to get caught in especially when what is right for one may be completely wrong for another. My only reference point would be that those whom were attacked in Kuwait were and still are today very thankful of our involvement. The flip side is that we had return years later to finish the job and that cost us more than that of those we were initially defending. I am not as up to snuff on my bible passages as my old catechism teachers strived for, but doesn't it say this is suppose to happen?

Quote from: JayBird on August 30, 2013, 03:44:03 PM
The moral act is such a tricky sticky maze to get caught in especially when what is right for one may be completely wrong for another. My only reference point would be that those whom were attacked in Kuwait were and still are today very thankful of our involvement. The flip side is that we had return years later to finish the job and that cost us more than that of those we were initially defending. I am not as up to snuff on my bible passages as my old catechism teachers strived for, but doesn't it say this is suppose to happen?

"suppose to happen" Yes

Quote from: JayBird on August 30, 2013, 03:44:03 PM
The moral act is such a tricky sticky maze to get caught in especially when what is right for one may be completely wrong for another. My only reference point would be that those whom were attacked in Kuwait were and still are today very thankful of our involvement. The flip side is that we had return years later to finish the job and that cost us more than that of those we were initially defending. I am not as up to snuff on my bible passages as my old catechism teachers strived for, but doesn't it say this is suppose to happen?

I don't see the bible as a guide book for this sort of thing i.e. whether or not to take deadly action in a conflict we cannot change in modern Syria. That is another discussion altogether and has nothing to do with the reality of the current conflict in Syria nor does it address the fact that our involvement will change nothing irrespective of what happened in Kuwait. 

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 03:55:06 PM

Quote from: JayBird on August 30, 2013, 03:44:03 PM
The moral act is such a tricky sticky maze to get caught in especially when what is right for one may be completely wrong for another. My only reference point would be that those whom were attacked in Kuwait were and still are today very thankful of our involvement. The flip side is that we had return years later to finish the job and that cost us more than that of those we were initially defending. I am not as up to snuff on my bible passages as my old catechism teachers strived for, but doesn't it say this is suppose to happen?

"suppose to happen" Yes

OMG, that is all.   :o

Well there you go JayBird, you have drawn a response from IILU.  Carry on if you guys like.  This will be one area of discussion I will not comment on for a variety of reasons.  I will leave it to you guys to hash out.  Give me some time to make some popcorn though please.  This will be interesting to view.  :)

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 04:02:23 PM
Well there you go JayBird, you have drawn a response from IILU.  Carry on if you guys like.  This will be one area of discussion I will have little interest in.  I will leave it to you guys to hash out.

Promise LOL!

You bet I promise with regard to this portion of discussion.  lol 

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 04:06:45 PM
You bet I promise with regard to this portion of discussion.  lol

One of the problems with you Diane you want the last word like that really counts for anything? LOL!

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 03:40:52 PM
For those who would like to email the President with your thought's about any military involvement in Syria, here is the link to do so.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Obama and Kerry today said we have all the proof we need ...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 30, 2013, 04:11:58 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 03:40:52 PM
For those who would like to email the President with your thought's about any military involvement in Syria, here is the link to do so.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Obama and Kerry today said we have all the proof we need ...

Well there is a surprise.  My guess is their minds were made up quite some time ago.  Now it's a matter of trying to mitigate the degree of forceful action that is taken.  The military machine must be fed and Obama it looks to me doesn't want to be seen as a weak leader who is afraid for armed conflict and further enforce this idea that the U.S.A is the world police.  That's a pity.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 30, 2013, 04:11:58 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 03:40:52 PM
For those who would like to email the President with your thought's about any military involvement in Syria, here is the link to do so.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Obama and Kerry today said we have all the proof we need ...

Then they should take their proof to Congress so that the people's representatives can have a proper discussion about whether the US military should get involved. 

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2013/08/30/on-war-and-declarations-of-war (http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2013/08/30/on-war-and-declarations-of-war)

QuoteOn War and Declarations of War
Jason Kuznicki / 9 hours ago
Bellona
Yesterday the United Kingdom showed us what it looks like to live under the rule of law:

British lawmakers on Thursday delivered a stunning rejection of Prime Minister David Cameron's bid to punish the government of Bashar al-Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons, citing skepticism over the misinformation used to back the Iraq war as a reason for staying out of Syria and raising the prospect that any U.S.-led strike would go ahead without its staunchest military ally.

The move came as a severe blow both to Cameron — a Conservative Party hawk on Syria — and to U.S. hopes of securing a Britain as a cornerstone of a coalition. After an eight-hour debate, Cameron lost a vote that was seen as a symbolic, preliminary motion setting up a final vote in the days ahead. The failure of even the weaker piece of legislation, in a 285 to 272 vote, suggested that Cameron faces overwhelming opposition to the idea of Britain joining any strikes.

All this is just as it should be: The representatives of the people decided the question of war, and this time around they said no. The morning headline today is damning by contrast:

Obama has power, determination to make own decision on Syria, administration says

No, Mr. Obama, you do not. We live under a written constitution, and that constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Without a declaration, you may act only in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Not one of those things has happened in Syria, nor is there even a vaguely plausible scenario by which they might. There isn't even a fig leaf of justification to this intervention. It is simply warmaking by executive fiat. It is precisely what our Constitution was designed to prevent. It is a lawless and illegitimate act.

The power to declare war was not given to Congress by accident. Nor is it some arcane ritual of a bygone era.

No, this arrangement was done by conscious design: so that the representatives of the individuals who would fight, risk their lives, and die might first decide whether the matter was compelling enough to demand such a sacrifice. The Parliament of the United Kingdom has just said no, and there is reason to believe that our Congress would say no too, if only they were asked. It doesn't look like they will be.

Entrusting to Congress the power to declare war is an anti-war measure. It exists to keep us out of war. Congress — flighty, irresolute, perpetually deadlocked — would not act in concert except in fairly dire circumstances. And none who had to face the wrath of a democratic electorate would send those voters out on a war if national defense did not absolutely compel it. Or so the thinking went.

It's not a perfect system; none are. But the founders knew very well the history of Europe in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. They had seen quite enough of executive warmaking. That approach brought Europe perpetual war, perpetual turmoil, and an empty, puffed-up "glory" for monarchs who gained little, lost little, and risked absolutely nothing while slaughtering each others' subjects.

The United States, our founders promised, would be different. As a republic, we would not treat our citizens, or the citizens of any other country, as gambit pawns. We are individuals, and so are they, and we are not fodder for the growing of empires. That, anyway, was the idea.

How sad that Europe now is showing us the error of our ways.

I see that the UK government has plenty of sense, overwhelmingly voting nay concerning any military (militree) action in Syria, despite the urgent pleas from the Prime Minister. 

Quote from: Ajax on August 30, 2013, 04:15:15 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 30, 2013, 04:11:58 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 03:40:52 PM
For those who would like to email the President with your thought's about any military involvement in Syria, here is the link to do so.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Obama and Kerry today said we have all the proof we need ...

Then they should take their proof to Congress so that the people's representatives can have a proper discussion about whether the US military should get involved. 

Exactly.  I guess this is also an indicator that the U.N. is just politically correct window dressing and America is gonna do what America is gonna do.  The unfortunate part is that this attitude and action just doesn't always play well around the globe. 

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 04:18:23 PM

Quote from: Ajax on August 30, 2013, 04:15:15 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 30, 2013, 04:11:58 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 03:40:52 PM
For those who would like to email the President with your thought's about any military involvement in Syria, here is the link to do so.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Obama and Kerry today said we have all the proof we need ...

Then they should take their proof to Congress so that the people's representatives can have a proper discussion about whether the US military should get involved. 

Exactly.  I guess this is also an indicator that the U.N. is just politically correct window dressing and America is gonna do what America is gonna do.  The unfortunate part is that this attitude and action just doesn't always play well around the globe.

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=487 Tick Tock

There is no way that anyone can get rid of chemical weapons without boots on the ground.  We can't just bomb the chemical weapons away.  That just disperses the poison.  So we'll be committing ourselves to yet another invasion of a predominantly Muslim country. 

How has our intervention in other Middle East countries worked out recently?  Egypt?  Libya?  Afghanistan?  Iraq?  Unless you're happy to see how they've turned out, then what makes you think that getting involved in Syria will be any better? 

This should be debated openly in Congress.  If our representatives don't do their due diligence and decide to go to war, then it's on all of us.  But I don't want an Imperial President killing more people in my name. 

Quote from: Ajax on August 30, 2013, 04:22:22 PM
There is no way that anyone can get rid of chemical weapons without boots on the ground.  We can't just bomb the chemical weapons away.  That just disperses the poison.  So we'll be committing ourselves to yet another invasion of a predominantly Muslim country. 

How has our intervention in other Middle East countries worked out recently?  Egypt?  Libya?  Afghanistan?  Iraq?  Unless you're happy to see how they've turned out, then what makes you think that getting involved in Syria will be any better? 

This should be debated openly in Congress.  If our representatives don't do their due diligence and decide to go to war, then it's on all of us.  But I don't want an Imperial President killing more people in my name.

You can take out Syria's planes and bomb the area's were these missiles came from. And yes Innocence people could be killed we try not to have that happen but even our smart bombs don't work right all the time.

(http://i.imgur.com/OolFHNK.jpg)

from the link carpenter shared.  (thanks)

http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/syrians-jacksonville-rally-against-us-intervention/nZghY/

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 04:27:24 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/OolFHNK.jpg)

Diane you broke your promise? "You bet I promise with regard to this portion of discussion.  lol "

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 04:26:34 PM

Quote from: Ajax on August 30, 2013, 04:22:22 PM
There is no way that anyone can get rid of chemical weapons without boots on the ground.  We can't just bomb the chemical weapons away.  That just disperses the poison.  So we'll be committing ourselves to yet another invasion of a predominantly Muslim country. 

How has our intervention in other Middle East countries worked out recently?  Egypt?  Libya?  Afghanistan?  Iraq?  Unless you're happy to see how they've turned out, then what makes you think that getting involved in Syria will be any better? 

This should be debated openly in Congress.  If our representatives don't do their due diligence and decide to go to war, then it's on all of us.  But I don't want an Imperial President killing more people in my name.

You can take out Syria's planes and bomb the area's were these missiles came from. And yes Innocence people could be killed we try not to have that happen but even our smart bombs don't work right all the time.

I don't want any innocent people to die by American hands, but I'm more concerned about young American men and women dying because our 'leaders' have a hard on for war and they want to keep feeding that Military Industrial Complex. 

Do you agree that this should be debated in Congress?  Or do you feel that the President should decide without Congress' input? 

Quote from: Ajax on August 30, 2013, 04:33:24 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 04:26:34 PM

Quote from: Ajax on August 30, 2013, 04:22:22 PM
There is no way that anyone can get rid of chemical weapons without boots on the ground.  We can't just bomb the chemical weapons away.  That just disperses the poison.  So we'll be committing ourselves to yet another invasion of a predominantly Muslim country. 

How has our intervention in other Middle East countries worked out recently?  Egypt?  Libya?  Afghanistan?  Iraq?  Unless you're happy to see how they've turned out, then what makes you think that getting involved in Syria will be any better? 

This should be debated openly in Congress.  If our representatives don't do their due diligence and decide to go to war, then it's on all of us.  But I don't want an Imperial President killing more people in my name.

You can take out Syria's planes and bomb the area's were these missiles came from. And yes Innocence people could be killed we try not to have that happen but even our smart bombs don't work right all the time.

I don't want any innocent people to die by American hands, but I'm more concerned about young American men and women dying because our 'leaders' have a hard on for war and they want to keep feeding that Military Industrial Complex. 

Do you agree that this should be debated in Congress?  Or do you feel that the President should decide without Congress' input?

Ajax if the Congress wasn't made up with Right Wing Republicans. This military action would have already happen. So No the President doesn't need to take this to the Worst Congress I have seen in my life!

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 04:40:30 PM

Quote from: Ajax on August 30, 2013, 04:33:24 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 04:26:34 PM

Quote from: Ajax on August 30, 2013, 04:22:22 PM
There is no way that anyone can get rid of chemical weapons without boots on the ground.  We can't just bomb the chemical weapons away.  That just disperses the poison.  So we'll be committing ourselves to yet another invasion of a predominantly Muslim country. 

How has our intervention in other Middle East countries worked out recently?  Egypt?  Libya?  Afghanistan?  Iraq?  Unless you're happy to see how they've turned out, then what makes you think that getting involved in Syria will be any better? 

This should be debated openly in Congress.  If our representatives don't do their due diligence and decide to go to war, then it's on all of us.  But I don't want an Imperial President killing more people in my name.

You can take out Syria's planes and bomb the area's were these missiles came from. And yes Innocence people could be killed we try not to have that happen but even our smart bombs don't work right all the time.

I don't want any innocent people to die by American hands, but I'm more concerned about young American men and women dying because our 'leaders' have a hard on for war and they want to keep feeding that Military Industrial Complex. 

Do you agree that this should be debated in Congress?  Or do you feel that the President should decide without Congress' input?

Ajax if the Congress wasn't made up with Right Wing Republicans. This military action would have already happen. So No the President doesn't need to take this to the Worst Congress I have seen in my life!

If our country were truly under attack it would be so horrible and so compelling that it would override partisanship.  I agree that the Republicans have been obstructionists on many issues without offering their own proposals, but in this case it sounds like you (and President Obama) want to circumvent Congress (and the Constitution) just because you can't get your way.  Your opinion of Congress notwithstanding, American servicemen and women deserve better.  This isn't just a Republican vs. Democrat peeing match, this is serious. 

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 04:29:55 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 04:27:24 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/OolFHNK.jpg)

Diane you broke your promise? "You bet I promise with regard to this portion of discussion.  lol "

IILU, I promised I would not engage in the discussion/debate about the war in Syria as being inevitable and supposedly written about in the bible. Try and keep up with the context of statements made.  I fully intend to continue to discuss the issue of the conflict in Syria and the actions America takes in response.  What I do not intend to comment on or discuss is some ancient, supposed biblical prediction about Syria and war there being prophetic.  Others who find that of interest of course are free to discuss it as much as they see fit. 

Quote from: Ajax on August 30, 2013, 04:47:25 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 04:40:30 PM

Quote from: Ajax on August 30, 2013, 04:33:24 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 04:26:34 PM

Quote from: Ajax on August 30, 2013, 04:22:22 PM
There is no way that anyone can get rid of chemical weapons without boots on the ground.  We can't just bomb the chemical weapons away.  That just disperses the poison.  So we'll be committing ourselves to yet another invasion of a predominantly Muslim country. 

How has our intervention in other Middle East countries worked out recently?  Egypt?  Libya?  Afghanistan?  Iraq?  Unless you're happy to see how they've turned out, then what makes you think that getting involved in Syria will be any better? 

This should be debated openly in Congress.  If our representatives don't do their due diligence and decide to go to war, then it's on all of us.  But I don't want an Imperial President killing more people in my name.

You can take out Syria's planes and bomb the area's were these missiles came from. And yes Innocence people could be killed we try not to have that happen but even our smart bombs don't work right all the time.

I don't want any innocent people to die by American hands, but I'm more concerned about young American men and women dying because our 'leaders' have a hard on for war and they want to keep feeding that Military Industrial Complex. 

Do you agree that this should be debated in Congress?  Or do you feel that the President should decide without Congress' input?

Ajax if the Congress wasn't made up with Right Wing Republicans. This military action would have already happen. So No the President doesn't need to take this to the Worst Congress I have seen in my life!

If our country were truly under attack it would be so horrible and so compelling that it would override partisanship.  I agree that the Republicans have been obstructionists on many issues without offering their own proposals, but in this case it sounds like you (and President Obama) want to circumvent Congress (and the Constitution) just because you can't get your way.  Your opinion of Congress notwithstanding, American servicemen and women deserve better.  This isn't just a Republican vs. Democrat peeing match, this is serious. 

Exactly Ajax, well said.

Quote from: Ajax on August 30, 2013, 04:47:25 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 04:40:30 PM

Quote from: Ajax on August 30, 2013, 04:33:24 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 04:26:34 PM

Quote from: Ajax on August 30, 2013, 04:22:22 PM
There is no way that anyone can get rid of chemical weapons without boots on the ground.  We can't just bomb the chemical weapons away.  That just disperses the poison.  So we'll be committing ourselves to yet another invasion of a predominantly Muslim country. 

How has our intervention in other Middle East countries worked out recently?  Egypt?  Libya?  Afghanistan?  Iraq?  Unless you're happy to see how they've turned out, then what makes you think that getting involved in Syria will be any better? 

This should be debated openly in Congress.  If our representatives don't do their due diligence and decide to go to war, then it's on all of us.  But I don't want an Imperial President killing more people in my name.

You can take out Syria's planes and bomb the area's were these missiles came from. And yes Innocence people could be killed we try not to have that happen but even our smart bombs don't work right all the time.

I don't want any innocent people to die by American hands, but I'm more concerned about young American men and women dying because our 'leaders' have a hard on for war and they want to keep feeding that Military Industrial Complex. 

Do you agree that this should be debated in Congress?  Or do you feel that the President should decide without Congress' input?

Ajax if the Congress wasn't made up with Right Wing Republicans. This military action would have already happen. So No the President doesn't need to take this to the Worst Congress I have seen in my life!

If our country were truly under attack it would be so horrible and so compelling that it would override partisanship.  I agree that the Republicans have been obstructionists on many issues without offering their own proposals, but in this case it sounds like you (and President Obama) want to circumvent Congress (and the Constitution) just because you can't get your way.  Your opinion of Congress notwithstanding, American servicemen and women deserve better.  This isn't just a Republican vs. Democrat peeing match, this is serious.

Ajax I'm getting my way? I'm just another person with Free Will same as you. If we do this to Syria or we don't do this my life moves forward. I can't change what happen yesterday and I can't see the future. I know this is serious but I have to trust Obama that no boots will be on the ground during this strike. Now if Iran strikes Israel this powder keg is history. So yes I do know that this is Very Serious!

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 04:40:30 PM

Quote from: Ajax on August 30, 2013, 04:33:24 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 04:26:34 PM

Quote from: Ajax on August 30, 2013, 04:22:22 PM
There is no way that anyone can get rid of chemical weapons without boots on the ground.  We can't just bomb the chemical weapons away.  That just disperses the poison.  So we'll be committing ourselves to yet another invasion of a predominantly Muslim country. 

How has our intervention in other Middle East countries worked out recently?  Egypt?  Libya?  Afghanistan?  Iraq?  Unless you're happy to see how they've turned out, then what makes you think that getting involved in Syria will be any better? 

This should be debated openly in Congress.  If our representatives don't do their due diligence and decide to go to war, then it's on all of us.  But I don't want an Imperial President killing more people in my name.

You can take out Syria's planes and bomb the area's were these missiles came from. And yes Innocence people could be killed we try not to have that happen but even our smart bombs don't work right all the time.

I don't want any innocent people to die by American hands, but I'm more concerned about young American men and women dying because our 'leaders' have a hard on for war and they want to keep feeding that Military Industrial Complex. 

Do you agree that this should be debated in Congress?  Or do you feel that the President should decide without Congress' input?

Ajax if the Congress wasn't made up with Right Wing Republicans. This military action would have already happen. So No the President doesn't need to take this to the Worst Congress I have seen in my life!

Fortunately it appears that a majority of the public does not agree with you. 
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/30/20256971-nbc-poll-nearly-80-percent-want-congressional-approval-on-syria?lite

I found this part rather encouraging:

QuoteIn this new NBC poll, 50 percent of respondents oppose the United States taking military action in response to Syria's suspected use of chemical weapons, compared with 42 percent who support it.
And 58 percent agree with the statement that the use of chemical weapons by any country violates a "red line" that requires a significant U.S. response, including the possibility of military action.
Still, a whopping 79 percent of respondents – including nearly seven-in-10 Democrats and 90 percent of Republicans – say the president should be required to receive congressional approval before taking any action.
The poll also finds that only 21 percent think taking action against the Syrian government is in the national interest of the United States. By comparison, 33 percent disagree and 45 percent don't know enough to have an opinion.

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 05:00:42 PMAjax I'm getting my way? I'm just another person with Free Will same as you. If we do this to Syria or we don't do this my life moves forward. I can't change what happen yesterday and I can't see the future. I know this is serious but I have to trust Obama that no boots will be on the ground during this strike. Now if Iran strikes Israel this powder keg is history. So yes I do know that this is Very Serious!

I was just pointing out that you and President Obama don't believe Congress should be consulted, and at least in your case it appears that your reasoning is based on the belief that Congress would say 'no'. 

See, it's that "have to trust Obama" part that bothers me.  I don't want to have to trust any one person.  Not a President, not a king and not a dictator.  Will you be ok with it if four years from now you "have to trust Palin"?  Or Bush?  Or pick the worst possible Republican president you can imagine.  I would have a little more trust in a deliberative body that was elected to represent me, than just one guy.  And remember, whatever powers you want to "trust" your President with - you have to be willing to trust a President from the other party with those very same powers.  Otherwise you'll be right next to me calling for that President to make a case before Congress. 

Quote from: carpnter on August 30, 2013, 05:02:24 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 04:40:30 PM

Quote from: Ajax on August 30, 2013, 04:33:24 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 04:26:34 PM

Quote from: Ajax on August 30, 2013, 04:22:22 PM
There is no way that anyone can get rid of chemical weapons without boots on the ground.  We can't just bomb the chemical weapons away.  That just disperses the poison.  So we'll be committing ourselves to yet another invasion of a predominantly Muslim country. 

How has our intervention in other Middle East countries worked out recently?  Egypt?  Libya?  Afghanistan?  Iraq?  Unless you're happy to see how they've turned out, then what makes you think that getting involved in Syria will be any better? 

This should be debated openly in Congress.  If our representatives don't do their due diligence and decide to go to war, then it's on all of us.  But I don't want an Imperial President killing more people in my name.

You can take out Syria's planes and bomb the area's were these missiles came from. And yes Innocence people could be killed we try not to have that happen but even our smart bombs don't work right all the time.

I don't want any innocent people to die by American hands, but I'm more concerned about young American men and women dying because our 'leaders' have a hard on for war and they want to keep feeding that Military Industrial Complex. 

Do you agree that this should be debated in Congress?  Or do you feel that the President should decide without Congress' input?

Ajax if the Congress wasn't made up with Right Wing Republicans. This military action would have already happen. So No the President doesn't need to take this to the Worst Congress I have seen in my life!

Fortunately it appears that a majority of the public does not agree with you. 
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/30/20256971-nbc-poll-nearly-80-percent-want-congressional-approval-on-syria?lite

I found this part rather encouraging:

QuoteIn this new NBC poll, 50 percent of respondents oppose the United States taking military action in response to Syria's suspected use of chemical weapons, compared with 42 percent who support it.
And 58 percent agree with the statement that the use of chemical weapons by any country violates a "red line" that requires a significant U.S. response, including the possibility of military action.
Still, a whopping 79 percent of respondents – including nearly seven-in-10 Democrats and 90 percent of Republicans – say the president should be required to receive congressional approval before taking any action.
The poll also finds that only 21 percent think taking action against the Syrian government is in the national interest of the United States. By comparison, 33 percent disagree and 45 percent don't know enough to have an opinion.

Fine by me carpnter I think for myself Right or Wrong. :)

Quote from: Ajax on August 30, 2013, 05:10:13 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 05:00:42 PMAjax I'm getting my way? I'm just another person with Free Will same as you. If we do this to Syria or we don't do this my life moves forward. I can't change what happen yesterday and I can't see the future. I know this is serious but I have to trust Obama that no boots will be on the ground during this strike. Now if Iran strikes Israel this powder keg is history. So yes I do know that this is Very Serious!

I was just pointing out that you and President Obama don't believe Congress should be consulted, and at least in your case it appears that your reasoning is based on the belief that Congress would say 'no'. 

See, it's that "have to trust Obama" part that bothers me.  I don't want to have to trust any one person.  Not a President, not a king and not a dictator.  Will you be ok with it if four years from now you "have to trust Palin"?  Or Bush?  Or pick the worst possible Republican president you can imagine.  I would have a little more trust in a deliberative body that was elected to represent me, than just one guy.  And remember, whatever powers you want to "trust" your President with - you have to be willing to trust a President from the other party with those very same powers.  Otherwise you'll be right next to me calling for that President to make a case before Congress.

I trust Obama that Syria needs to be taught a lesson. I didn't say I trust Obama 100% all of the time did I? I said "I know this is serious but I have to trust Obama that no boots will be on the ground during this strike."

This is the latest from Obama, video included.  From my view it is "politi-speak' and is tantamount to the U.S. again attempting to police the world without waiting to see what the U.N decides.  In his statement the President says he has spoken with a variety of interests including congress, but did not say what their response was. He claims there will be no boots on the ground or a long term involvement.  Where have we heard this before?  He restates that this is about letting Syria and other countries know chemical weapons are not acceptable but then finishes with the statement that he understands doing this will not change what is happening in Syria. Again world policing by the U.S. alone.  If this is the view of many nations, then many nations need to respond.  Watch video for his exact words. I voted for Obama but the reality is that he like other Presidents before him is simply human and open to making choices about military intervention that end up putting us in the midst of lengthy wars. 

http://www.cnn.com/?sr=fbmain

Quote from: Ajax on August 30, 2013, 05:10:13 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 05:00:42 PMAjax I'm getting my way? I'm just another person with Free Will same as you. If we do this to Syria or we don't do this my life moves forward. I can't change what happen yesterday and I can't see the future. I know this is serious but I have to trust Obama that no boots will be on the ground during this strike. Now if Iran strikes Israel this powder keg is history. So yes I do know that this is Very Serious!

+ 1,000,000

I was just pointing out that you and President Obama don't believe Congress should be consulted, and at least in your case it appears that your reasoning is based on the belief that Congress would say 'no'. 

See, it's that "have to trust Obama" part that bothers me.  I don't want to have to trust any one person.  Not a President, not a king and not a dictator.  Will you be ok with it if four years from now you "have to trust Palin"?  Or Bush?  Or pick the worst possible Republican president you can imagine.  I would have a little more trust in a deliberative body that was elected to represent me, than just one guy.  And remember, whatever powers you want to "trust" your President with - you have to be willing to trust a President from the other party with those very same powers.  Otherwise you'll be right next to me calling for that President to make a case before Congress. 

+ 1,000,000

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 05:17:50 PM
This is the latest from Obama, video included.  From my view it is "politi-speak' and is tantamount to the U.S. again attempting to police the world without waiting to see what the U.N decides.  In his statement the President says he has spoken with a variety of interests including congress, but did not say what their response was. He claims there will be no boots on the ground or a long term involvement.  Where have we heard this before?  He restates that this is about letting Syria and other countries know chemical weapons are not acceptable but then finishes with the statement that he understands doing this will not change what is happening in Syria. Again world policing by the U.S. alone.  If this is the view of many nations, then many nations need to respond.  Watch video for his exact words. I voted for Obama but the reality is that he like other Presidents before him is simply human and open to making choices about military intervention that end up putting us in the midst of lengthy wars. 

http://www.cnn.com/?sr=fbmain

So you voted for Obama good for you so did I in 2008 and 2012. Well we have something in common after all Diane. :)

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 30, 2013, 05:26:21 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 30, 2013, 05:17:50 PM
This is the latest from Obama, video included.  From my view it is "politi-speak' and is tantamount to the U.S. again attempting to police the world without waiting to see what the U.N decides.  In his statement the President says he has spoken with a variety of interests including congress, but did not say what their response was. He claims there will be no boots on the ground or a long term involvement.  Where have we heard this before?  He restates that this is about letting Syria and other countries know chemical weapons are not acceptable but then finishes with the statement that he understands doing this will not change what is happening in Syria. Again world policing by the U.S. alone.  If this is the view of many nations, then many nations need to respond.  Watch video for his exact words. I voted for Obama but the reality is that he like other Presidents before him is simply human and open to making choices about military intervention that end up putting us in the midst of lengthy wars. 

http://www.cnn.com/?sr=fbmain

So you voted for Obama good for you so did I in 2008 and 2012. Well we have something in common after all Diane. :)

Considering recent discussion, that may be the only thing we have in common.   ::)

I was simply stating that one persons morals don't always match another's. And my religious reference was merely to the two pages of comments relating to religion. So I do find it interesting how one can judge another's comments based on their moral or religious indications, yet at the same time say it has no bearing on this discussion.

Via the Associated Press

QuoteKerry says U.N. investigators probing a chemical weapons attack are limited by a mandate to determine if an attack took place. He says they won't say who is responsible.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/national/2013-08-30/story/kerry-un-has-nothing-add-syria-intel#ixzz2dUiBoI6m

From this evenings news.  It appears a good number of American's and legislators are not in favor on any intervention in Syria.  I found the comments made by local Syrian very compelling.  Especially this one.

QuoteSyria is not, it's different. You have to deal with it very carefully, because the chaos after this intervention will be extremely dangerous," said Hazar Kassis.

"My feeling, if there's any American operation, military operation will not solve the problem, even more than that, it will make it worse," said Dr. Kassis.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/jacksonville-couple-speaks-about-syrian-conflict/-/475880/21725978/-/vxpqiyz/-/index.html   (click link for full story)

QuoteChannel 4 spoke Friday night with local law makers about the situation in Syria.

"I think it'd be a huge, huge mistake for America to enter into this," said Congressman Ted Yoho.

Yoho said he demanded proof that doesn't seem available during a conference call with the White House.

"If it's this serious, I think we need to be back in Congress, call the recess off," said Yoho. "I think Britain did what was right. They debated it, and they said, 'We're not getting involved in this.'"

Well done Mr. President.  The president has just announced he is ready to act at any moment, "however" he is going to take the decision to Congress and let the peoples representatives decide before the order to strike is executed!  This is what needed to happen!  This is what I hoped he would do.

http://www.cnn.com/

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 31, 2013, 02:02:30 PM
Well done Mr. President.  The president has just announced he is ready to act at any moment, "however" he is going to take the decision to Congress and let the peoples representatives decide before ordering the order to strike executed!  This is what needed to happen!  This is what I hoped he would do.

http://www.cnn.com/

He just gave himself a way out.

Here is Obama's statement on video via News4Jax.

http://www.news4jax.com/politics/obama-to-make-statement-as-syria-strike-possibility-looms/-/1875986/21732172/-/n3pypoz/-/index.html

We definitely need to bomb Syria.

If we don't, who will?

We could ask the Federal Reserve Bank to print money in order to finance the endeavor, and could ask GE to produce a few thousand more Tomohawk missiles.

If we don't bomb Syria into oblivion, the Evil Doers™ win.

You're with us, or you're with the terrorists.

http://youtu.be/c3I3ahtwrZE

If any mods would kindly embedd this video for me... TIA

Oh my, oh my....George Galloway speaks again and again and again......  :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway

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)

QuoteEXCLUSIVE: 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.

Another article just out from NPR asking the question, what if this was Saudi influence via the rebels or the rebels on their own?  Many unanswered questions.  Consider this,

QuoteFor one thing, the alleged chemical attack happened in the Ghouta region of Damascus. It is controlled by the rebels, and civilians in the area sympathize with the rebels.

"The smart thing [for the rebels] would be for you to aim for barracks and maime/kill a significant few hundred soldiers as the best chance for reverberations that played to your advantage," said Lopez. "This was not done."

It seems clear, Lopez says,"that some armed unit foot soldiers were sent in by Assad some time after the attack in limited numbers. That achieved the desired effect of making the case that since Assad soldiers were hit, the weapons came from the 'terrorists;' but these were exemplars, too few to make a strategic difference for the rebels."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/27/216172145/is-it-possible-the-syrian-rebels-not-assad-used-chemical-weapons  (click link for full story)

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), a senior member the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that while he supports Obama's decision to seek congressional approval on Syria, immediate military action is needed.

"The president wants to put to rest any doubt the American people may have.  I support the president's decision. But as far as I'm concerned, we should strike in Syria today," he said in a statement shortly following Obama's Saturday afternoon remarks. "The use of chemical weapons was inhumane, and those responsible should be forced to suffer the consequences."

Obama said Saturday afternoon that while he had decided "the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets," he would seek congressional approval for military action before moving forward.

House leadership said the lower chamber will consider authorizing a strike on Syria the week of Sept. 9, postponing any military action — which had initially looked imminent — until that week, when Congress is set to return from recess.



Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/319809-sen-nelson-urges-immediate-strike-on-syria#ixzz2dbYOX2JU
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

We can all be thankful that Bill Nelson never rose to the office of President.  Obama made the right call today and that is where things stand regardless of who agrees and who doesn't.  The elected representatives of the citizen's, our congress need to wade through this issue and then decide whether or not they agree with the President that strikes on Syria is the course of action this country should take without any allies to speak of on the record supporting this action.  We still have a democratic process in America and we need to use it.  There is much more going on than meets the eye in this situation and before we go blasting away at another country who is in the midst of a civil war we must know without a shadow of a doubt the who, why, when and where of the chemical attacks which is not yet confirmed by anyone at the White House. No one can say what the "sufficient" indicators they have in hand are that point to the guilty party and new reports have come out today which put a serious Saudi overtone on this mess.  With Saudi interests at play, Israeli influence at play and Russian influence and support of Syria in the mix, a wrong move could be catastrophic in this case.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 31, 2013, 10:53:26 PM
We can all be thankful that Bill Nelson never rose to the office of President.  Obama made the right call today and that is where things stand regardless of who agrees and who doesn't.  The elected representatives of the citizen's, our congress need to wade through this issue and then decide whether or not they agree with the President that strikes on Syria is the course of action this country should take without any allies to speak of on the record supporting this action.  We still have a democratic process in America and we need to use it.  There is much more going on than meets the eye in this situation and before we go blasting away at another country who is in the midst of a civil war we must know without a shadow of a doubt the who, why, when and where of the chemical attacks which is not yet confirmed by anyone at the White House. No one can say what the "sufficient" indicators they have in hand that point to the guilty party and new reports have come out today which put a serious Saudi overtone on this mess.  With Saudi interests at play, Israeli influence at play and Russian influence and support of Syria in the mix, a wrong move could be catastrophic in this case.

The "Israeli influence at play" is so very true. So if we do bomb area's of Syria with or without the Congress. You have heard what Iran has said to Israeli "Strike on Syria Would Lead to Retaliation on Israel, Iran Warns" and "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said Tuesday after security meetings in Tel Aviv that, "The State of Israel is ready for any scenario. We are not part of the civil war in Syria but if we identify any attempt whatsoever to harm us, we will respond and we will respond in strength."  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel who really isn't a fan of President Obama knows that America would help Israel 100%! So if President Obama doesn't hit Syria at this time the area will be in the $h!t in the near future. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/world/middleeast/syria-iran-israel.html?_r=0

Here is what Fox News is putting out http://nation.foxnews.com/poll/2013/08/30/should-us-proceed-with-intervention-in-syria-without-britain/ But you don't have to be a brain surgeon to understand Fox News hates President Obama and most people who look at Fox are ?

I see political affiliations stateside as being irrelevant to the issue, as well as news/punditry/propaganda outlets selling a war, or decrying it.

Fifty pages of caterwauling doesn't provide a shred of evidence showing any particular faction to be responsible for gassing people, yet some treat it as a foregone conclusion.

And Galloway might be a hack. If you hear any untrue, or even hyperbolized points within the speech I linked, please point them out.

Message being more important than messenger. That, and the Scottish accent is bitchin.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 31, 2013, 02:02:30 PM
Well done Mr. President.  The president has just announced he is ready to act at any moment, "however" he is going to take the decision to Congress and let the peoples representatives decide before the order to strike is executed!  This is what needed to happen!  This is what I hoped he would do.

http://www.cnn.com/

Then he shouldn't have talked it up like he was going to attack, talking about red lines, about all the horrors going on.   DOD officials talking about attack plans.  Quite frankly I think this all bit dear leader in the butt.  He and Kerry talked themselves into a corner and needed an out.  So at the last second he punts to congress and hopes dearly that they vote against any attack.  That way he can vote present and place blame on congress about any outcome.  Oh and work a couple of rounds of golf in as well.

Just saw this on Facebook - a group organizing in Jacksonville to oppose war in Syria:
https://www.facebook.com/jawsyria

Quote from: Charles Hunter on September 01, 2013, 10:52:44 PM
Just saw this on Facebook - a group organizing in Jacksonville to oppose war in Syria:
https://www.facebook.com/jawsyria

I think you mean War ON Syria.  There has been a war going on IN Syria for quite some time.

Quote from: civil42806 on September 01, 2013, 10:32:36 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 31, 2013, 02:02:30 PM
Well done Mr. President.  The president has just announced he is ready to act at any moment, "however" he is going to take the decision to Congress and let the peoples representatives decide before the order to strike is executed!  This is what needed to happen!  This is what I hoped he would do.

http://www.cnn.com/

Then he shouldn't have talked it up like he was going to attack, talking about red lines, about all the horrors going on.   DOD officials talking about attack plans.  Quite frankly I think this all bit dear leader in the butt.  He and Kerry talked themselves into a corner and needed an out.  So at the last second he punts to congress and hopes dearly that they vote against any attack.  That way he can vote present and place blame on congress about any outcome.  Oh and work a couple of rounds of golf in as well.

(Oh and work a couple of rounds of golf in as well.) Why not, do you work 24/7 365 days out of a year? President Obama when taking a break is still working I doubt you can say the same.

And the Congress certainly sees this as something urgent, as they have all rushed back from the break early and are convening as I type this to discuss the President's proposal.

Oh, wait, they aren't ... nevermind.

John Kerry speech transcript...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/running-transcript-secretary-of-state-john-kerrys-remarks-on-syria-on-aug-30/2013/08/30/f3a63a1a-1193-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html

If Assad had just had the decency to just keep shooting these people we wouldn't have this problem.  After all as our greatest Secretary of state said "he's a reformer".  But then again "what difference does it make". 

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 31, 2013, 08:48:54 PM
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)

QuoteEXCLUSIVE: 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.

The Mint press?  Reads like the lefts version of Lew Rockwell. Wasn't ever aware that anyone claimed that Saudi had chemical weapons?  that's a new one.  But I agree, its unclear who used them, Syria certainly had stockpiles, and if not the Russians could have supplied them.

Exclusive: USS Nimitz carrier group rerouted for possible help with Syria

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON - The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and other ships in its strike group are heading west toward the Red Sea to help support a limited U.S. strike on Syria, if needed, defense officials said on Sunday.

The Nimitz carrier strike group, which includes four destroyers and a cruiser, has no specific orders to move to the eastern Mediterranean at this point, but is moving west in the Arabian Sea so it can do so if asked.

"It's about leveraging the assets to have them in place should the capabilities of the carrier strike group and the presence be needed," said the official.

"We try to reduce the physics of time and space so we can be as ready as possible should we be needed," said a second official, cautioning that decisions about ship positioning in the Mediterranean were still being finalized.

President Barack Obama on Saturday delayed imminent cruise missile strikes by five destroyers off the coast of Syria until Congress had time to vote on the issue, effectively putting any military action on hold for at least nine days.

The delay gives military planners more time to reassess which ships and other weapons will be kept in the region - and which may be swapped out - before the military launches what defense officials say is still intended to be a limited and narrowly targeted attack on Syria.

The U.S. Navy doubled its presence in the eastern Mediterranean over the past week, effectively adding two destroyers to the three that generally patrol the region.

The destroyers are carrying a combined load of about 200 Tomahawk missiles, but officials say a limited strike on Syria could be accomplished with half that number.

The Nimitz carrier group had been in the Indian Ocean supporting U.S. operations in Afghanistan but was due to sail east around Asia to return to its home port in Everett, Washington, after being relieved in recent days by another aircraft carrier, the USS Harry S. Truman.

Given the situation in Syria, U.S. military officials decided to reroute the Nimitz and send it west toward the Red Sea, and possibly the Mediterranean, officials said.

The Navy has also sent the USS San Antonio, an amphibious ship carrying 300 Marines and extensive communications equipment, to join the destroyers, diverting it from a different mission that would have taken it farther west.

A second official said the San Antonio could serve as an afloat forward staging base, providing a temporary base for special operations forces, if they were needed. It could also assist with non-military evacuations.

A spokesman for the ship declined comment, referring questions to the Navy. Lieutenant Adam Cole, spokesman for the Navy's European headquarters, declined to discuss any specific plans for the San Antonio or future ship movements.

Decisions about Navy ship positioning will be made in coming days, based on military needs, maintenance issues and staffing requirements, officials said, noting that the delay in a strike on Syria had sent planners back to the drawing board.

The USS Kearsarge, a large-deck amphibious ship that is part of a readiness group with the San Antonio, is also on the way toward the Red Sea after a port call in the United Arab Emirates, officials said. No further specific orders had been issued to the ship, they said.

The Kearsarge, which carries 6 AV-8B Harriers, 10-12 V-22 Ospreys and helicopters, played a key role in the 2011 strikes on Libya. Two Ospreys launched from the ship helped rescue a downed F-15 pilot during that operation.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Peter Cooney and Philip Barbara)

http://preview.reuters.com/2013/9/1/exclusive-uss-nimitz-carrier-group-rerouted-for-1

(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/8/26/1377543007188/Syria_Targets_Map_WEB.png)

Quote from: buckethead on September 01, 2013, 09:52:09 PM
I see political affiliations stateside as being irrelevant to the issue, as well as news/punditry/propaganda outlets selling a war, or decrying it.

Fifty pages of caterwauling doesn't provide a shred of evidence showing any particular faction to be responsible for gassing people, yet some treat it as a foregone conclusion.

And Galloway might be a hack. If you hear any untrue, or even hyperbolized points within the speech I linked, please point them out.

Message being more important than messenger. That, and the Scottish accent is bitchin.

I love a Scottish accent, as my dad's people are Scottish/English.  :) 

As far as Galloway, he is not the type of person I would look to for "insight" on anything just because of who he is and his history of doing things like "celebrating" Saddam Hussein and other dictators.

Having said the above, I think it is going to be next to impossible for people to know the truth of this situation and what the "many" agenda's driving it happen to be.  However the Saudi influence is pushing heavily for our involvement in Syria and frankly, I don't think the decision of whether or not we respond with missile strikes should be based upon what they want.  Read another article confirming the pressure coming from the Saudi's.  I will see if I can find it again to post it.

Quote from: civil42806 on September 01, 2013, 10:32:36 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 31, 2013, 02:02:30 PM
Well done Mr. President.  The president has just announced he is ready to act at any moment, "however" he is going to take the decision to Congress and let the peoples representatives decide before the order to strike is executed!  This is what needed to happen!  This is what I hoped he would do.

http://www.cnn.com/

Then he shouldn't have talked it up like he was going to attack, talking about red lines, about all the horrors going on.   DOD officials talking about attack plans.  Quite frankly I think this all bit dear leader in the butt.  He and Kerry talked themselves into a corner and needed an out.  So at the last second he punts to congress and hopes dearly that they vote against any attack.  That way he can vote present and place blame on congress about any outcome.  Oh and work a couple of rounds of golf in as well.

This is clearly another valid way to look at the decision made.  Whatever drove it though it is a good thing that this is going to congress to be debated by the peoples personal representatives.  We need to use the democratic process we tout as one the world should embrace.  It is also deeply concerning that next to no allies, save France have said they would support us in any effort in Syria.  There are times even the U.S. needs to listen and understand what others are saying.  I know we are considered a "sleeping giant" by many world wide.  I just don't want us to be the "ignorant gorilla" that others can poke with a stick and we react with violence that will change nothing regarding the Syrian conflict except notch the tension up to a much higher degree in the Middle East.  This is an area that has been in turmoil for thousands of years and frankly, we aren't gonna fix any of it. 

RUSSIA

Why it cares:

Two main reasons: One has to do with economics; the other with ideology.

a) Economics: Russia is one of Syria's biggest arms suppliers. aka Show me the Money Baby!

Syrian contracts with the Russian defense industry have likely exceeded $4 billion, according to Jeffrey Mankoff, an adjunct fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies Russia and Eurasia Program.

He noted the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated the value of Russian arms sales to Syria at $162 million per year in both 2009 and 2010.

Moscow also signed a $550 million deal with Syria for combat training jets.

Russia also leases a naval facility at the Syrian port of Tartus, giving the Russian navy its only direct access to the Mediterranean, Mankoff said.

b) Ideology: Russia's key policy goal is blocking American efforts to shape the region.

Russia doesn't believe revolutions, wars and regime change bring stability and democracy. It often points to the Arab Spring and the U.S.-led war in Iraq as evidence.

Russia also doesn't trust U.S. intentions in the region. It believes humanitarian concerns are often used an excuse for pursuing America's own political and economic interests.

"Russia's backing of (Syrian President Bashar) al-Assad is not only driven by the need to preserve its naval presence in the Mediterranean, secure its energy contracts, or counter the West on 'regime change,'" said Anna Neistat, an associate program director at Human Rights Watch.

"It also stems from (Russian President Vladimir) Putin's existential fear for his own survival and the survival of the repressive system that he and al-Assad represent. In Putin's universe, al-Assad cannot lose because it means that one day he, Putin, might as well."

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

^What is interesting about the Russian influence is that France has clearly said they view their friendship with Russia as important as that of the U.S.A.  That should concern some folks in the decision making capacity when France is the only one saying they would support missile strikes and action in Syria at this time and Russia is heavily vested with arms and support in Syria.  France could be a middle man in more ways than one. 

"Whatever drove it though it is a good thing"

No that's not a good thing Cheshire.  Its an abdication of leadership.  If he indeed wanted to go to congress and get approval, (which I think he should have to begin with).  Then he should have done so without being driven to it.  Kerry has to feel like a  5$ whore with the back tracking he has had to do.  Saudi influence in DC is no news its exists and will until we dump Mideast oil via either new fracking or alternate energy.  I was the one that questioned the mint news and still do the whole Saudi providing chems were based on interviews with Syria rebels, no hard news or tests.

Oh yay, fracking, there's the solution!

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 02, 2013, 12:59:49 PM
^What is interesting about the Russian influence is that France has clearly said they view their friendship with Russia as important as that of the U.S.A.  That should concern some folks in the decision making capacity when France is the only one saying they would support missile strikes and action in Syria at this time and Russia is heavily vested with arms and support in Syria.  France could be a middle man in more ways than one.

I still feel something needs to be done. We had our pants around are ankles when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurds back in 1988? "The five-hour attack began in the evening of March 16, 1988, following a series of indiscriminate conventional (rocket and napalm) attacks, when Iraqi MiG and Mirage aircraft began dropping chemical bombs on Halabja's residential areas, far from the besieged Iraqi army base on the outskirts of the town. According to regional Kurdish rebel commanders, Iraqi aircraft conducted up to 14 bombings in sorties of seven to eight planes each; helicopters coordinating the operation were also seen. Eyewitnesses told of clouds of white, black and then yellow smoke billowing upward and rising as a column about 150 feet (46 m) in the air.[1]

"It was a beautiful spring day. As the clock approached 11:00 in the morning, I felt a strange sensation; my heart convulsed as if it were telling me that we were on the verge of a major calamity. Within minutes, artillery rounds began to explode in Halabja and planes began dropping bombs on the town. The bombing was concentrated on the northern neighborhoods, so we ran and hid in our basement. At 2 o'clock in the afternoon, as the intensity of the bombing wound down, I carefully sneaked out of the basement to the kitchen and carried food to my family. When the bombing stopped, we began to hear noises that sounded like metal pieces falling on the ground. But I didn't find an explanation.

I saw things that I won't forget for as long as I live. It started with a loud strange noise that sounded like bombs exploding, and a man came running into our house, shouting, 'Gas! Gas!' We hurried into our car and closed its windows. I think the car was rolling over the bodies of innocent people. I saw people lying on the ground, vomiting a green-colored liquid, while others became hysterical and began laughing loudly before falling motionless onto the ground. Later, I smelled an aroma that reminded me of apples and I lost consciousness. When I awoke, there were hundreds of bodies scattered around me. After that I took shelter again in a nearby basement and the area was engulfed by an ugly smell. It was similar to rotting garbage, but then it changed to a sweet smell similar to that of apples. Then I smelled something that was like eggs.

When you hear people shouting the words 'gas' or 'chemicals' -- and you hear those shouts spreading among the people -- that is when terror begins to take hold, especially among the children and the women. Your loved ones, your friends, you see them walking and then falling like leaves to the ground. It is a situation that cannot be described -- birds began falling from their nests; then other animals, then humans. It was total annihilation. Whoever was able to walk out of the town, left on foot. Whoever had a car, left by car. But whoever had too many children to carry on their shoulders, they stayed in the town and succumbed to the gas."[8]

Survivors said the gas at first smelled of sweet apples;[9] they said people died in a number of ways, suggesting a combination of toxic chemicals: some of the victims "just dropped dead" while others "died of laughing," while still others took a few minutes to die, first "burning and blistering" or coughing up green vomit.[10] Many injured, blind and mad, perished in a panic.[11] It is believed that Iraqi forces used multiple chemical agents during the attack, including sulfur mustard (mustard gas) and the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX.[3] Some sources have also pointed to the blood agent hydrogen cyanide. Most of the wounded taken to hospitals in the Iranian capital Tehran were suffering from mustard gas exposure.[1]

Some consider the event as separate from the Operation Anfal (the 1986–1989 campaign conducted by Saddam's regime's in order to terrorize the Kurdish rural population and end the peshmerga rebellions by brutal means), as the Iranian troops allied to the rebels were also involved in the Halabja events. Nevertheless, the victims of the tragedy are often included in accounting the deaths attributable to the Anfal campaign, which was characterised by the widespread and indiscriminate use of chemical weapons by Iraq. Prior to the Halabja incident there were at least 21 documented smaller-scale chemical attacks against Iraqi Kurds, none of which prompted any serious response from the international community.[12]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Quote from: civil42806 on September 02, 2013, 02:10:57 PM
"Whatever drove it though it is a good thing"

No that's not a good thing Cheshire.  Its an abdication of leadership.  If he indeed wanted to go to congress and get approval, (which I think he should have to begin with).  Then he should have done so without being driven to it.  Kerry has to feel like a  5$ whore with the back tracking he has had to do.  Saudi influence in DC is no news its exists and will until we dump Mideast oil via either new fracking or alternate energy.  I was the one that questioned the mint news and still do the whole Saudi providing chems were based on interviews with Syria rebels, no hard news or tests.

The reality is that getting true and accurate facts out of Syria is going to be nearly impossible.  Of course you are free to view Obama's actions as you wish.  :)   From my view he did not abdicate leadership, but thought better of his own choices and decided to take this to congress.  Of course we can both put whatever spin on his actions that we want at this point because the decision has been made and the issue going to congress. Now we will all have to wait and see what develops not only in congress but on the worldwide stage.  I will always have a problem with the idea that collateral damage which equates to the loss of innocent lives is something we should think about.  If the person who dies is dear to someone, they are not collateral damage to that person and I don't think our government really has the right or authority to insert itself into the civil war in Syria.  I certainly do not believe that this will end with "surgical strikes" if congress approves that action, nor do I believe that such an action will make the nut job dictators or world terrorists give a second thought to the manufacture or use of chemical weapons. 

This is yet another "undertone" to what is going horribly wrong in Syria and why all action taken by the U.S. needs to be backed by immutable facts.  It has been repeatedly alleged that "Al Qaeda" has embedded their terrorist ilk into the rebel forces in Syria.  Sound impossible?  It's not, they have done it before with "chilling" results.  The fact is that if the U.S. chooses actions that support the rebels of Syria, we may well be helping to serve the terrorist agenda and grab for power of our "sworn" enemies, the Al Qaeda, the soldiers of Bin Laden.  Some serious investigation is needed into the who, what, when and where of the "rebel" faction in Syria as well as what is known about the powers that be.  It would be inconceivable that the U.S. would fund or fight next to these monsters.

(http://i.imgur.com/hYkWejZ.jpg)

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2013/aug/30/syrians-al-qaeda-
hijacked-revolution-civil-war/   ( click for full story)

Quote

Syrians inside the country say the revolution began with peaceful protests from the poor seeking reforms. The movement now brims with violent terrorist operatives aligned with Al Qaeda and Al-Nasra, including extremist fighters from Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq. The mainstream media portrays a false picture of the now-compromised Free Syrian Army.

The extremist elements within are not just minority-affiliates. They win the battles, they have the ammunition and the food. They have slowly filled the power vaccuum and they do not fight for a freed Syria, but to establish an ultra-fundamentalist state.

American taxpayers have fueled the Syrian Civil War by providing $117 million in communications and medical equipment to the opposition. We can be assured we've contributed more in other ways not on the books.

The United States is then funding our own sworn enemies and their affiliates. These are supposed to be America's foes. These dangerous terrorists we have sacrificed blood, treasure and liberty to defeat are now our allies by proxy.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 03, 2013, 01:29:47 PM
This is yet another "undertone" to what is going horribly wrong in Syria and why all action taken by the U.S. needs to be backed by immutable facts.  It has been repeatedly alleged that "Al Qaeda" has embedded their terrorist ilk into the rebel forces in Syria.  Sound impossible?  It's not, they have done it before with "chilling" results.  The fact is that if the U.S. chooses actions that support the rebels of Syria, we may well be helping to serve the terrorist agenda and grab for power of our "sworn" enemies, the Al Qaeda, the soldiers of Bin Laden.  Some serious investigation is needed into the who, what, when and where of the "rebel" faction in Syria as well as what is known about the powers that be.  It would be inconceivable that the U.S. would fund or fight next to these monsters.

(http://i.imgur.com/hYkWejZ.jpg)

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2013/aug/30/syrians-al-qaeda-
hijacked-revolution-civil-war/   ( click for full story)

Quote

Syrians inside the country say the revolution began with peaceful protests from the poor seeking reforms. The movement now brims with violent terrorist operatives aligned with Al Qaeda and Al-Nasra, including extremist fighters from Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq. The mainstream media portrays a false picture of the now-compromised Free Syrian Army.

The extremist elements within are not just minority-affiliates. They win the battles, they have the ammunition and the food. They have slowly filled the power vaccuum and they do not fight for a freed Syria, but to establish an ultra-fundamentalist state.

American taxpayers have fueled the Syrian Civil War by providing $117 million in communications and medical equipment to the opposition. We can be assured we've contributed more in other ways not on the books.

The United States is then funding our own sworn enemies and their affiliates. These are supposed to be America's foes. These dangerous terrorists we have sacrificed blood, treasure and liberty to defeat are now our allies by proxy.

"The Washington Times Newspaper" is a Right Wing Newspaper they can't stand Obama! I love it when the right wing nuts try to tell us that the so called "mainstream media" doesn't understand the Facts? LMAO  P.S. If you joined the Armed Forces you must do what the Military tells you to do..............

Right wing, left wing, who cares?  The reality is that the involvement of Al Qaeda has been alleged in this instance by more sources and media outlets than the one above.  It is of paramount importance for the U.S.A. to make sure this element has not infected the rebel cause and that we are not helping to fund their efforts.  Embedding their ilk into efforts that they are not directly involved with in order to grow their influence is an ongoing "MO" of Al Qaeda.  Shall we just hope the allegations are untrue or shall we investigate them?  They delivered one of the single most damaging blows on American soil we have ever seen.  Let's not pretend that they are incapable of doing damage on the ground in Syria.  That would be terribly arrogant of us and frankly stupid.  This must be investigated and understood to be true or false and it needs to be investigated now, on the front end of more talks or potential action.

It is true Diane... and there is worse... Hezbollah and Hamas (Iranian proxies) have allied themselves with Assad.  It is already possible/probable that Assad has or is ready to arm these two groups with chemical weapons.  A side effect of an Obama missle attack is the threat to Israel...

Let the Baathists and al qaida gas and butcher each other... let Hamas and Hezbollah bomb and butcher al qaida...

There really cannot be too many women and children left in Syria as most are now in refugee camps in surrounding countries... or dead.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 03, 2013, 01:54:48 PM
It is true Diane... and there is worse... Hezbollah and Hamas (Iranian proxies) have allied themselves with Assad.  It is already possible/probable that Assad has or is ready to arm these two groups with chemical weapons.  A side effect of an Obama missle attack is the threat to Israel...

Let the Baathists and al qaida gas and butcher each other... let Hamas and Hezbollah bomb and butcher al qaida...

There really cannot be too many women and children left in Syria as most are now in refugee camps in surrounding countries... or dead.

I fear it is true and I fear that the U.S. is the "big Gorilla" that is being pocked by pointed sticks on all sides.  We simply must know what we are dealing with and admit that we cannot change what is happening in the middle east.  They must work it out themselves and that will likely take more time than most of us have left on this earth, if history is the indicator.

As to the potential of collateral damage in all of this action.  If the U.S.A. has reached the point that we can surgically attack another country, then we should also be able to do all that we can to make sure that the innocents who want out get out.  Is that possible?  By today's standards of action and the reality on the ground it is not.  So BT I have to agree with you that I would rather the parties involved go at each other and let the realities of their actions be put entirely on their shoulders.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 03, 2013, 01:54:15 PM
Right wing, left wing, who cares?  The reality is that the involvement of Al Qaeda has been alleged in this instance by more sources and media outlets than the one above.  It is of paramount importance for the U.S.A. to make sure this element has not infected the rebel cause and that we are not helping to fund their efforts.  Embedding their ilk into efforts that they are not directly involved in in order to grow their influence is an ongoing "MO" of Al Qaeda.  Shall we just hope the allegations are untrue or shall we investigate them?  They delivered one of the single most damaging blows on American soil we have ever seen.  Let's not pretend that they are incapable of doing damage on the ground in Syria.  That would be terribly arrogant of us and frankly stupid.  This must be investigated and understood to be true or false and it needs to be investigated now, on the front end of more talks or potential action.

Diane who should do the investigation in which most people will believe? It is out of are hands it's up to the Congress God help us. And the President of The United States of America!

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 03, 2013, 01:57:33 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 03, 2013, 01:54:48 PM
It is true Diane... and there is worse... Hezbollah and Hamas (Iranian proxies) have allied themselves with Assad.  It is already possible/probable that Assad has or is ready to arm these two groups with chemical weapons.  A side effect of an Obama missle attack is the threat to Israel...

Let the Baathists and al qaida gas and butcher each other... let Hamas and Hezbollah bomb and butcher al qaida...

There really cannot be too many women and children left in Syria as most are now in refugee camps in surrounding countries... or dead.

I fear it is true and I fear that the U.S. is the "big Gorilla" that is being pocked by pointed sticks on all sides.  We simply must know what we are dealing with and admit that we cannot change what is happening in the middle east.  They must work it out themselves and that will likely take more time than most of us have left on this earth, if history is the indicator.

It is the ultimate.... no win situation.  Since Obama boxed himself in with his "red line" threat... not responding to Assads use of chemical weapons will be a sign of weakness... not just to Assad but to Iran also.  Iran is watching closely as they are slowly bringing their nuclear capability on line.  The US has long had a policy of no nukes in Iran... so they are watching to see how we respond to... obamas red line.

If Assad jr. wins the "civil war" the US will be blamed for not helping overthrow a regime worse than gaddafi and hussein combined.  If the islamist rebels overthrow Assad... we will again be on the wrong side as... well they are islamists (al qaida etc).

Fun stuff this real world politik...

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 03, 2013, 02:04:29 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 03, 2013, 01:54:15 PM
Right wing, left wing, who cares?  The reality is that the involvement of Al Qaeda has been alleged in this instance by more sources and media outlets than the one above.  It is of paramount importance for the U.S.A. to make sure this element has not infected the rebel cause and that we are not helping to fund their efforts.  Embedding their ilk into efforts that they are not directly involved in in order to grow their influence is an ongoing "MO" of Al Qaeda.  Shall we just hope the allegations are untrue or shall we investigate them?  They delivered one of the single most damaging blows on American soil we have ever seen.  Let's not pretend that they are incapable of doing damage on the ground in Syria.  That would be terribly arrogant of us and frankly stupid.  This must be investigated and understood to be true or false and it needs to be investigated now, on the front end of more talks or potential action.

Diane who should do the investigation in which most people will believe? It is out of are hands it's up to the Congress God help us. And the President of The United States of America!

Is this a serious question?  If we have resources that are being used and relied upon to determine whether or not Syrian leadership used chemical weapons do you think that those self same resources cannot be used to determine the involvement of Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah?  You seem to think the U.S. have enough facts in had to bomb in Syria, but you still ask how do we go about getting facts on the ground about the who and what of this civil war.  SMDH!

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 03, 2013, 02:07:29 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 03, 2013, 01:57:33 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 03, 2013, 01:54:48 PM
It is true Diane... and there is worse... Hezbollah and Hamas (Iranian proxies) have allied themselves with Assad.  It is already possible/probable that Assad has or is ready to arm these two groups with chemical weapons.  A side effect of an Obama missle attack is the threat to Israel...

Let the Baathists and al qaida gas and butcher each other... let Hamas and Hezbollah bomb and butcher al qaida...

There really cannot be too many women and children left in Syria as most are now in refugee camps in surrounding countries... or dead.

I fear it is true and I fear that the U.S. is the "big Gorilla" that is being pocked by pointed sticks on all sides.  We simply must know what we are dealing with and admit that we cannot change what is happening in the middle east.  They must work it out themselves and that will likely take more time than most of us have left on this earth, if history is the indicator.

It is the ultimate.... no win situation.  Since Obama boxed himself in with his "red line" threat... not responding to Assads use of chemical weapons will be a sign of weakness... not just to Assad but to Iran also.  Iran is watching closely as they are slowly bringing their nuclear capability on line.  The US has long had a policy of no nukes in Iran... so they are watching to see how we respond to... obamas red line.

If Assad jr. wins the "civil war" the US will be blamed for not helping overthrow a regime worse than gaddafi and hussein combined.  If the islamist rebels overthrow Assad... we will again be on the wrong side as... well they are islamists (al qaida etc).

Fun stuff this real world politik...

That's the point isn't it really?  The U.S. will be blamed regardless and that is our own fault for playing at being the "world's police".  It was interesting to find out that chemical weapon's had already been used in Syria on more than three previous occasions and the world remained mute.  It wasn't until the numbers of injuries as a result of chemical weapons grew large enough that anyone paid attention. Now some politicians want to blame Obama for the "civil war" in Syria.  It's absurd and insane to assert such a thing yet political players would pretend it is so.  As far as the President's statements, I think as a society we should be reasonable enough to change course when more and perhaps revealing information comes out regarding any world wide issue.  I think it takes greater strength for a President to change course in view of the desires of the citizens of our country and the world if in fact military action on our part will not change what happens in Syria and the middle east.  There is no law beyond "ego" that says rethinking a course of action is a weakness when in fact it may be the truest measure of strength depending upon the ramifications of military action on humanity.  Let's not pretend this is not about people losing their lives and us eventually being drawn into a war that will put our boots on the ground.  We don't need to let that happen and that is where this is headed in spite of all this nonsense about "surgical strikes" and that is all.  It is never all when it comes to involvement in any war.

Not sure I buy this...

QuoteI think it takes greater strength for a President to change course in view of the desires of the citizens of our country and the world.

I personally think he is hiding behind it.  He has given himself an "out".  "I know I said red line... but congress says no so..."  It will be interesting to see how the congress leans and how Obama responds... then how Assad and Iran and France and Israel and etc responds.

QuoteThere is no law beyond "ego" that says rethinking a course of action is a weakness when in fact it may be the truest measure of strength depending upon the ramifications of military action on humanity.

Have no doubt... rethinking his red line threat absolutely WILL be percieved as weakness by opponents, friends and the non committed around the world.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 03, 2013, 02:08:40 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 03, 2013, 02:04:29 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 03, 2013, 01:54:15 PM
Right wing, left wing, who cares?  The reality is that the involvement of Al Qaeda has been alleged in this instance by more sources and media outlets than the one above.  It is of paramount importance for the U.S.A. to make sure this element has not infected the rebel cause and that we are not helping to fund their efforts.  Embedding their ilk into efforts that they are not directly involved in in order to grow their influence is an ongoing "MO" of Al Qaeda.  Shall we just hope the allegations are untrue or shall we investigate them?  They delivered one of the single most damaging blows on American soil we have ever seen.  Let's not pretend that they are incapable of doing damage on the ground in Syria.  That would be terribly arrogant of us and frankly stupid.  This must be investigated and understood to be true or false and it needs to be investigated now, on the front end of more talks or potential action.

Diane who should do the investigation in which most people will believe? It is out of are hands it's up to the Congress God help us. And the President of The United States of America!

Is this a serious question?  If we have resources that are being used and relied upon to determine whether or not Syrian leadership used chemical weapons do you think that those self same resources cannot be used to determine the involvement of Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah?  You seem to think the U.S. have enough facts in had to bomb in Syria, but you still ask how do we go about getting facts on the ground about the who and what of this civil war.  SMDH!

I believe Syria did use Chemical Weapons. But you keep beginning up these so called facts from the washington times and others SMDH!

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 03, 2013, 02:52:31 PM
Not sure I buy this...

QuoteI think it takes greater strength for a President to change course in view of the desires of the citizens of our country and the world.

I personally think he is hiding behind it.  He has given himself an "out".  "I know I said red line... but congress says no so..."  It will be interesting to see how the congress leans and how Obama responds... then how Assad and Iran and France and Israel and etc responds.

QuoteThere is no law beyond "ego" that says rethinking a course of action is a weakness when in fact it may be the truest measure of strength depending upon the ramifications of military action on humanity.

Have no doubt... rethinking his red line threat absolutely WILL be percieved as weakness by opponents, friends and the non committed around the world.

I am sure a lot of people agree with you BT.  I am still serious about the ability to change course, not just in the case of a President, but as it would apply to any individual who is poised to make a serious decision that will impact other people.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 03, 2013, 03:06:51 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 03, 2013, 02:52:31 PM
Not sure I buy this...

QuoteI think it takes greater strength for a President to change course in view of the desires of the citizens of our country and the world.

I personally think he is hiding behind it.  He has given himself an "out".  "I know I said red line... but congress says no so..."  It will be interesting to see how the congress leans and how Obama responds... then how Assad and Iran and France and Israel and etc responds.

QuoteThere is no law beyond "ego" that says rethinking a course of action is a weakness when in fact it may be the truest measure of strength depending upon the ramifications of military action on humanity.

Have no doubt... rethinking his red line threat absolutely WILL be percieved as weakness by opponents, friends and the non committed around the world.

I am sure a lot of people agree with you BT.  I am still serious about the ability to change course, not just in the case of a President, but as it would apply to any individual who is poised to make a serious decision that will impact other people.

I would contend in this case that a "change in course" implies indecision.  This indecision will be viewed as weakness and vacillation.  From where you and I stand we would likely see this as a miscalculation by those who see it that way.  Miscalculation by Assad or Iran or Russia or Israel... may be an even worse outcome of this mess than we think...

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 03, 2013, 02:57:40 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 03, 2013, 02:08:40 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 03, 2013, 02:04:29 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 03, 2013, 01:54:15 PM
Right wing, left wing, who cares?  The reality is that the involvement of Al Qaeda has been alleged in this instance by more sources and media outlets than the one above.  It is of paramount importance for the U.S.A. to make sure this element has not infected the rebel cause and that we are not helping to fund their efforts.  Embedding their ilk into efforts that they are not directly involved in in order to grow their influence is an ongoing "MO" of Al Qaeda.  Shall we just hope the allegations are untrue or shall we investigate them?  They delivered one of the single most damaging blows on American soil we have ever seen.  Let's not pretend that they are incapable of doing damage on the ground in Syria.  That would be terribly arrogant of us and frankly stupid.  This must be investigated and understood to be true or false and it needs to be investigated now, on the front end of more talks or potential action.

Diane who should do the investigation in which most people will believe? It is out of are hands it's up to the Congress God help us. And the President of The United States of America!

Is this a serious question?  If we have resources that are being used and relied upon to determine whether or not Syrian leadership used chemical weapons do you think that those self same resources cannot be used to determine the involvement of Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah?  You seem to think the U.S. have enough facts in had to bomb in Syria, but you still ask how do we go about getting facts on the ground about the who and what of this civil war.  SMDH!

I believe Syria did use Chemical Weapons. But you keep beginning up these so called facts from the washington times and others SMDH!

It's called reading comprehension and you clearly need to work on that. lol  At no point did I present this information as "facts" however sharing current media views is part and parcel of understanding this issue and what underlies it. What I did say was the question of potential (and I believe likely) involvement of Al Qaeda needs to be looked into prior to further discussion and action in response to what is happening in Syria.  Pay attention please if you feel the need to comment.  I put my real face and name to my comments and stand behind what I say while doing my best to explain my concerns and opinions.  You stand in the wings sharing opinions and views remaining in the shadows of an online moniker.  Please forgive me for not being able to take your ongoing posts and dialog seriously in this case.  I truly don't mean that as insulting and I am sure others will defend commentary under a screen name as necessary for privacy and I get and respect that in most cases, not all.  Your's falls into the "not all" category. 

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 03, 2013, 03:16:36 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 03, 2013, 03:06:51 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 03, 2013, 02:52:31 PM
Not sure I buy this...

QuoteI think it takes greater strength for a President to change course in view of the desires of the citizens of our country and the world.

I personally think he is hiding behind it.  He has given himself an "out".  "I know I said red line... but congress says no so..."  It will be interesting to see how the congress leans and how Obama responds... then how Assad and Iran and France and Israel and etc responds.

QuoteThere is no law beyond "ego" that says rethinking a course of action is a weakness when in fact it may be the truest measure of strength depending upon the ramifications of military action on humanity.

Have no doubt... rethinking his red line threat absolutely WILL be percieved as weakness by opponents, friends and the non committed around the world.

I am sure a lot of people agree with you BT.  I am still serious about the ability to change course, not just in the case of a President, but as it would apply to any individual who is poised to make a serious decision that will impact other people.

I would contend in this case that a "change in course" implies indecision.  This indecision will be viewed as weakness and vacillation.  From where you and I stand we would likely see this as a miscalculation by those who see it that way.  Miscalculation by Assad or Iran or Russia or Israel... may be an even worse outcome of this mess than we think...

I won't argue that view.  You may be correct.

"Miscalculation by Assad or Iran or Russia or Israel... may be an even worse outcome of this mess than we think..."  Wait until Iran finishes their Nuclear Weapon program and Israel will take care of them and it's not going to be pretty.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a450a866-1467-11e3-84b4-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2dvJA3oR9

QuoteNumber of refugees fleeing Syria tops 2m

By Abigail Fielding-Smith in Beirut and Funja Guler in Ankara and John Aglionby in London

Syria's refugee crisis is escalating, with the number of people having fled its borders doubling to 2m in the past six months, the UN has warned.

The UNHCR, the body's refugee agency, said on Tuesday that the refugee total a year ago stood at 230,670. Today's 2m total includes all those registered as refugees and awaiting registration.

"The war is now well into its third year and Syria is haemorrhaging women, children and men who cross borders often with little more than the clothes on their backs," the agency said in a statement.

(http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/0dcaadbe-14c7-11e3-b3db-00144feabdc0.img)

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 03, 2013, 02:04:29 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 03, 2013, 01:54:15 PM
Right wing, left wing, who cares?  The reality is that the involvement of Al Qaeda has been alleged in this instance by more sources and media outlets than the one above.  It is of paramount importance for the U.S.A. to make sure this element has not infected the rebel cause and that we are not helping to fund their efforts.  Embedding their ilk into efforts that they are not directly involved in in order to grow their influence is an ongoing "MO" of Al Qaeda.  Shall we just hope the allegations are untrue or shall we investigate them?  They delivered one of the single most damaging blows on American soil we have ever seen.  Let's not pretend that they are incapable of doing damage on the ground in Syria.  That would be terribly arrogant of us and frankly stupid.  This must be investigated and understood to be true or false and it needs to be investigated now, on the front end of more talks or potential action.

Diane who should do the investigation in which most people will believe? It is out of are hands it's up to the Congress God help us. And the President of The United States of America!

There's an International Criminal Court in the Hague that is set up for this type of situation. 

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 03, 2013, 02:07:29 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 03, 2013, 01:57:33 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 03, 2013, 01:54:48 PM
It is true Diane... and there is worse... Hezbollah and Hamas (Iranian proxies) have allied themselves with Assad.  It is already possible/probable that Assad has or is ready to arm these two groups with chemical weapons.  A side effect of an Obama missle attack is the threat to Israel...

Let the Baathists and al qaida gas and butcher each other... let Hamas and Hezbollah bomb and butcher al qaida...

There really cannot be too many women and children left in Syria as most are now in refugee camps in surrounding countries... or dead.

I fear it is true and I fear that the U.S. is the "big Gorilla" that is being pocked by pointed sticks on all sides.  We simply must know what we are dealing with and admit that we cannot change what is happening in the middle east.  They must work it out themselves and that will likely take more time than most of us have left on this earth, if history is the indicator.

It is the ultimate.... no win situation.  Since Obama boxed himself in with his "red line" threat... not responding to Assads use of chemical weapons will be a sign of weakness... not just to Assad but to Iran also.  Iran is watching closely as they are slowly bringing their nuclear capability on line.  The US has long had a policy of no nukes in Iran... so they are watching to see how we respond to... obamas red line.

If Assad jr. wins the "civil war" the US will be blamed for not helping overthrow a regime worse than gaddafi and hussein combined.  If the islamist rebels overthrow Assad... we will again be on the wrong side as... well they are islamists (al qaida etc).

Fun stuff this real world politik...

I agree that Obama boxed himself in, but as a person who doesn't want the US to be the 'world police' anymore, I'm not too worried about looking weak.  Nobody on earth doubts that the US would respond to an attack on our soil or interests, so the 'looking weak' problem is more of a problem for our allies than it is for us.  And we have too many alliances as it is. 

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 03, 2013, 02:52:31 PM
Not sure I buy this...

QuoteI think it takes greater strength for a President to change course in view of the desires of the citizens of our country and the world.

I personally think he is hiding behind it.  He has given himself an "out".  "I know I said red line... but congress says no so..."  It will be interesting to see how the congress leans and how Obama responds... then how Assad and Iran and France and Israel and etc responds.

QuoteThere is no law beyond "ego" that says rethinking a course of action is a weakness when in fact it may be the truest measure of strength depending upon the ramifications of military action on humanity.

Have no doubt... rethinking his red line threat absolutely WILL be percieved as weakness by opponents, friends and the non committed around the world.

I started out thinking that Obama had given himself an out, but now I'm not so sure.  Kerry (among others) has been spouting off that Obama is doing the right thing and taking it before Congress, but that Obama has the power to order a strike.  So if Congress votes 'no', then the Obama administration is already on record saying that they still have the necessary power.  He can't have it both ways. 

Regardless, I think that Congress will narrowly approve.  Boehner, Cantor, McCain, Graham and the rest of the old guard have come out strongly in favor.  And we know that if there's one thing that Republicans like more than obstructing Obama, it's bombing the crap out of people. 

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 03, 2013, 02:57:40 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 03, 2013, 02:08:40 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 03, 2013, 02:04:29 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 03, 2013, 01:54:15 PM
Right wing, left wing, who cares?  The reality is that the involvement of Al Qaeda has been alleged in this instance by more sources and media outlets than the one above.  It is of paramount importance for the U.S.A. to make sure this element has not infected the rebel cause and that we are not helping to fund their efforts.  Embedding their ilk into efforts that they are not directly involved in in order to grow their influence is an ongoing "MO" of Al Qaeda.  Shall we just hope the allegations are untrue or shall we investigate them?  They delivered one of the single most damaging blows on American soil we have ever seen.  Let's not pretend that they are incapable of doing damage on the ground in Syria.  That would be terribly arrogant of us and frankly stupid.  This must be investigated and understood to be true or false and it needs to be investigated now, on the front end of more talks or potential action.

Diane who should do the investigation in which most people will believe? It is out of are hands it's up to the Congress God help us. And the President of The United States of America!

Is this a serious question?  If we have resources that are being used and relied upon to determine whether or not Syrian leadership used chemical weapons do you think that those self same resources cannot be used to determine the involvement of Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah?  You seem to think the U.S. have enough facts in had to bomb in Syria, but you still ask how do we go about getting facts on the ground about the who and what of this civil war.  SMDH!

I believe Syria did use Chemical Weapons. But you keep beginning up these so called facts from the washington times and others SMDH!

Did you ever ask yourself why Assad would use chemical weapons?  I mean, it seems like the world was going to allow him to kill as many people as he wanted as long as he stuck to bombs and bullets.  Why would he ruin it? 

Can you imagine a scenario where al Quaeda militants - from another country and who have no particular allegiance to Syria or Syrians - might be willing to lob some chemical weapons into a residential area in order to get the rest of the world to come in and help them overthrow Assad?  I may not be completely up-to-date but last I heard the UN wasn't able to definitively say who launched the chemical attack. 

Quote from: Ajax on September 04, 2013, 08:33:24 AM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 03, 2013, 02:57:40 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 03, 2013, 02:08:40 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 03, 2013, 02:04:29 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 03, 2013, 01:54:15 PM
Right wing, left wing, who cares?  The reality is that the involvement of Al Qaeda has been alleged in this instance by more sources and media outlets than the one above.  It is of paramount importance for the U.S.A. to make sure this element has not infected the rebel cause and that we are not helping to fund their efforts.  Embedding their ilk into efforts that they are not directly involved in in order to grow their influence is an ongoing "MO" of Al Qaeda.  Shall we just hope the allegations are untrue or shall we investigate them?  They delivered one of the single most damaging blows on American soil we have ever seen.  Let's not pretend that they are incapable of doing damage on the ground in Syria.  That would be terribly arrogant of us and frankly stupid.  This must be investigated and understood to be true or false and it needs to be investigated now, on the front end of more talks or potential action.

Diane who should do the investigation in which most people will believe? It is out of are hands it's up to the Congress God help us. And the President of The United States of America!

Is this a serious question?  If we have resources that are being used and relied upon to determine whether or not Syrian leadership used chemical weapons do you think that those self same resources cannot be used to determine the involvement of Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah?  You seem to think the U.S. have enough facts in had to bomb in Syria, but you still ask how do we go about getting facts on the ground about the who and what of this civil war.  SMDH!

I believe Syria did use Chemical Weapons. But you keep beginning up these so called facts from the washington times and others SMDH!

Did you ever ask yourself why Assad would use chemical weapons?  I mean, it seems like the world was going to allow him to kill as many people as he wanted as long as he stuck to bombs and bullets.  Why would he ruin it? 

Can you imagine a scenario where al Quaeda militants - from another country and who have no particular allegiance to Syria or Syrians - might be willing to lob some chemical weapons into a residential area in order to get the rest of the world to come in and help them overthrow Assad?  I may not be completely up-to-date but last I heard the UN wasn't able to definitively say who launched the chemical attack.

1. Did you ever ask yourself why Assad would use chemical weapons? Yes he knows the Civil War isn't going away anytime soon. He used the Chemical Weapons feeling he has Big Brother Iran and Russia on his side that the Americans are not going to bomb his country? 2. Can you imagine a scenario where al Quaeda militants. I hope you don't believe these none humans over President Obama? 3. UN wasn't able to definitively say who launched the chemical attack. The UN has it's own agenda they want everybody to hold hands and sing? We are the World?

Although I don't like Obama's decision to attack Syria, I do like his decision to force Congress to approve that military action. IMO the whole 'security threat to the USA' in Syria is unfounded and bogus. The Arab League already said that they don't want any Western interference with this thing; Our course we will be portrayed as the 'infidel invaders' although they kinda will have a point....

Now that this issue will be discussed by Congress and a decision rendered, it is important that we the people speak to our representatives in Congress and let them know how we feel about the issue of "missile strikes" in Syria.  Please take a brief moment to call both of our rep's in Congress and let them know you opinion.  They are keeping a running list of yea's and nay's.  You don't have to leave a name or number just your opinion.

Jacksonville Congress Rep's

              Rep.  Corrine Brown            (904) 354-1652
              Rep.  Ander Crenshaw         (904) 598-0481

Looks like this young man has read a page from my book.  Could not have said it better.  Below find the link to the video with Chris Hayes comments.  I agree, I agree.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/04/chris-hayes-on-syria-here-is-where-i-stand/  (click link for full video or written transcript)

Quote

And before I explain my reasoning let me say that I don't think that people who disagree with me are contemptible scoundrels and warmongers. My own father, an ex-jesuit community organizer and a true moral beacon in my life thinks we should intervene and that counts for a lot in my book.

That said, here's why I think a military strike like the one being proposed is a bad idea.

First of all there's always a likelihood that we kill innocent people, a risk you run with any kind of military engagement, particularly aerial bombardment.

Second, while I think the general idea of enforcing the international norm against the deployment of chemical weapons is a laudable goal, I'm skeptical this kind of strike will do that. If Assad did in fact use chemical weapons—and you'll excuse me if the experience of Iraq makes me a wee bit reluctant to definitively state he did based solely on US intelligence. But again, if Assad, as the evidence would seem to suggest, did use these weapons, then he likely did so as a way of basically burning the bridge that could have let him retreat

Just how ugly can all of this get and where are we headed if we move to strike Syria?  Here is an indicator.  Russia how now moved it's missile cruiser to the Mediterranean.   Anyone one think Russia's leadership will back off their support of Syria?  Is it worth finding out?

Quote
Moscow has been Assad's most powerful ally, protecting him from consecutive U.N. security resolutions aimed at pressuring him to end violence. Russia insists the conflict must be solved through political dialogue in which Assad must take part.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/04/russian-missile-cruiser-mediterranean_n_3864741.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Do they revoke Nobel Peace prizes for inciting WWIII?

Quote from: acme54321 on September 05, 2013, 01:43:38 PM
Do they revoke Nobel Peace prizes for inciting WWIII?

They damn well should.  :(

(http://i.imgur.com/TejIhvM.jpg)

Here is another taste of the potential nasty and death awaiting the world with a missile strike by the U.S. in Syria.  The folks who are chomping for war and want to see a final deadly conflict with Israel would love for American to take action. 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-revolutionary-guards-chief-israel-will-be-destroyed-if-syria-attacked/

QuoteAn American strike on Syria will result in the destruction of Israel and have severe repercussions for the US and its allies, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards said.

A possible war in Syria "will result in the imminent destruction of the Zionist regime of Israel," General Mohammad Ali Jafari said late Wednesday, according to a report Thursday in the state-sponsored Iranian Tasnim News Agency

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 01:46:54 PM

Quote from: acme54321 on September 05, 2013, 01:43:38 PM
Do they revoke Nobel Peace prizes for inciting WWIII?

They damn well should.  :(

Let's be honest, they shouldn't have given it in the first place.

Quote from: acme54321 on September 05, 2013, 01:49:32 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 01:46:54 PM

Quote from: acme54321 on September 05, 2013, 01:43:38 PM
Do they revoke Nobel Peace prizes for inciting WWIII?

They damn well should.  :(

Let's be honest, they shouldn't have given it in the first place.

And to be very truthful it is worth remembering that Obama did not himself think he deserved the prize and said as much. 

Then there are the "questionable" rebel fighters, likely embedded with many an Al Qaeda terrorist among others.  They are not all about fighting for freedom and the brutality they bring to this war is frankly as chilling as that being meted out by Assad.  Anyone who is pretending that letting the rebel forces take control is going to make things better might be "horribly" mistaken.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

Quote
"For fifty years, they are companions to corruption," he said. "We swear to the Lord of the Throne, that this is our oath: We will take revenge."

The moment the poem ended, the commander, known as "the Uncle," fired a bullet into the back of the first prisoner's head. His gunmen followed suit, promptly killing all the men at their feet.

This scene, documented in a video smuggled out of Syria a few days ago by a former rebel who grew disgusted by the killings, offers a dark insight into how many rebels have adopted some of the same brutal and ruthless tactics as the regime they are trying to overthrow.

Swedish Reporter Actually Confronts Obama on His Nobel Peace Prize
Sep. 4, 2013 10:50am Fred Lucas

A Swedish reporter confronted President Barack Obama about reconciling a pending attack on Syria with his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize that he won almost immediately after taking office.
Obama and Sweden's Prime Minister Frederik Reinfeldt held a joint press conference Wednesday in Stockholm as part of the first ever bilateral meeting between the nation's two top leaders.

The reporter asked, "I was wondering, could you describe the dilemma to being a Nobel Peace Prize winner and getting ready to attack Syria?"

Obama first referred the reporter to look at his speech accepting the prize, in which he said he was undeserving compared to past recipients but also said the use of military force is sometimes necessary.

"What I also described is the challenge all of us face, when we believe in peace but we confront a world that is full of violence," Obama said. "The question then becomes what are our responsibilities. So, I've made every effort to end the war in Iraq, to wind down the war in Afghanistan, to strengthen our commitment to multilateral action, to promote diplomacy as a solution to problems. The question though, that all of us face as political leaders: At what point do we need to confront actions that are violating our common humanity?"

Answering his own question, Obama said, "I would argue when I see 400 children subjected to gas, over 1,400 civilians dying senselessly in an environment where you already have tens of thousands killed, and we have the opportunity to take some action that is meaningful even if it doesn't solve the entire problem, may at least mitigate this particular problem, then the moral thing to do is not to stand by and do nothing."

According to U.S. intelligence, Syrian dictator Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his own people on Aug. 21, killing 1,429, of whom 426 were children.

Obama went on to reference how much of the world is critical of the United States, but expects them to step up during an international crisis.

"As much as we are criticized, when bad stuff happens around the world, the first question is, what is the United States going to do about it?" Obama said. "That's true on every issue. It's true in Libya. It's true in Rwanda. It's true in Sierra Leon. It's now true in Syria. That's part of the deal."

Most of the Nobel prizes are awarded in Stockholm. The Nobel Peace Prize, however, is awarded in Oslo, Norway.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/04/swedish-journalist-confronts-obama-on-being-a-nobel-peace-prize-winner-and-getting-ready-to-attack-syria/

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 01:37:11 PM
Just how ugly can all of this get and where are we headed if we move to strike Syria?  Here is an indicator.  Russia how now moved it's missile cruiser to the Mediterranean.   Anyone one think Russia's leadership will back off their support of Syria?  Is it worth finding out?

Quote
Moscow has been Assad's most powerful ally, protecting him from consecutive U.N. security resolutions aimed at pressuring him to end violence. Russia insists the conflict must be solved through political dialogue in which Assad must take part.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/04/russian-missile-cruiser-mediterranean_n_3864741.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Putin is a Dangerous Man look how many times he has been in power?

"Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin (Russian: Влади́мир Влади́мирович Пу́тин, IPA: [vɫɐˈdʲimʲɪr vɫɐˈdʲimʲɪrəvʲɪt͡ɕ ˈputʲɪn] ( listen); born 7 October 1952) is a Russian politician who has been the President of Russia since 7 May 2012. Putin previously served as President from 2000 to 2008, and as Prime Minister of Russia from 1999 to 2000 and again from 2008 to 2012. Putin was also previously the Chairman of the United Russia political party.

For sixteen years Putin was an officer in the KGB, rising to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, before he retired to enter politics in his native Saint Petersburg in 1991. He moved to Moscow in 1996 and joined President Boris Yeltsin's administration where he rose quickly, becoming Acting President on 31 December 1999 when Yeltsin resigned unexpectedly. Putin won the subsequent 2000 presidential election and was re-elected in 2004. Because of constitutionally mandated term limits, Putin was ineligible to run for a third consecutive presidential term in 2008. Dmitry Medvedev won the 2008 presidential election and appointed Putin as Prime Minister, beginning a period of so-called "tandemocracy".[1] In September 2011, following a change in the law, Putin announced that he would seek a third, non-consecutive term as President in the 2012 presidential election, an announcement which led to large-scale protests in many Russian cities. He won the election in March 2012 and is serving an increased, six-year term.[2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin

And those on the receiving end of American involvement are saying "no".

Quote
Qasioun Mountain, a symbol of Damascus and Syria, is home to many security and military buildings and institutions and thus is expected to be one of the targets for the airstrikes. Protesters rallying beside the place called themselves a "human shield" and hold banners featuring slogans such as "No more American bombing democracy" and "Hands off Syria".

"We are here to express our loyalty to our country in the face of American threats. We don't want what they did in Iraq over chemical weapons claims to be done in our country," one of the rally participants told RT.

(http://i.imgur.com/npMpwRw.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/g1IxQWe.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/21sNZNo.jpg)


http://rt.com/news/syria-activists-us-bombing-380/

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 02:37:47 PM
And those on the receiving end of American involvement are saying "no".

(http://i.imgur.com/npMpwRw.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/g1IxQWe.jpg)


http://rt.com/news/syria-activists-us-bombing-380/

I have Never been impressed with an adult who has Used a child to hold a sign in which. The child has no idea what is really going on?

If America doesn't hit Syria I hope we keep are ships near the area and sit there till real change happens!

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 01:46:54 PM

Quote from: acme54321 on September 05, 2013, 01:43:38 PM
Do they revoke Nobel Peace prizes for inciting WWIII?

They damn well should.  :(

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Oslo, October 9, 2009        http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html

Last evening I watched a news report out of Germany. There was an exchange between President Ueli Maurer of Switzerland and President Obama who was saying that it was the "world" who drew the "red line" when it came to chemical weapons.  If this is correct the world then needs to decide what their "collective action should be".  It appears Switzerland's President feels the same way I do.  He affirmed that the use of chemical weapons was an atrocity and then stated that the issue needs to be resolved by the U.N.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 03:02:12 PM
Last evening I watched a news report out of Germany. There was an exchange between President Ueli Maurer of Switzerland and President Obama who was saying that it was the "world" who drew the "red line" when it came to chemical weapons.  If this is correct the world then needs to decide what their "collective action should be".  It appears Switzerland's President feels the same way I do.  He affirmed that the use of chemical weapons was an atrocity and then stated that the issue needs to be resolved by the U.N.

So we can all sing "We are the World" and feel good about ourselves.  ;)

Earlier we spoke about the military industry in the U.S. that is also a driver behind the desire to drop some missiles on Syria.  For those who don't get how political contributions buy votes, even when it comes to actions as drastic as stepping into Syria's civil war, this is a worthwhile read.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/syria-war-authorization-money/   (click link for full article)

Quote

Senators voting Wednesday to authorize a Syria strike received, on average, 83 percent more campaign financing from defense contractors than lawmakers voting against war.

Overall, political action committees and employees from defense and intelligence firms such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, United Technologies, Honeywell International, and others ponied up $1,006,887 to the 17 members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who voted yes or no on the authorization Wednesday, according to an analysis by Maplight, the Berkeley-based nonprofit that performed the inquiry at WIRED's request.

Committee members who voted to authorize what the resolution called a "limited" strike averaged $72,850 in defense campaign financing from the pot. Committee members who voted against the resolution averaged $39,770, according to the data.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 03:40:02 PM
Earlier we spoke about the military industry in the U.S. that is also a driver behind the desire to drop some missiles on Syria.  For those who don't get how political contributions buy votes, even when it comes to actions as drastic as stepping into Syria's civil war, this is a worthwhile read.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/syria-war-authorization-money/   (click link for full article)

Quote

Senators voting Wednesday to authorize a Syria strike received, on average, 83 percent more campaign financing from defense contractors than lawmakers voting against war.

Overall, political action committees and employees from defense and intelligence firms such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, United Technologies, Honeywell International, and others ponied up $1,006,887 to the 17 members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who voted yes or no on the authorization Wednesday, according to an analysis by Maplight, the Berkeley-based nonprofit that performed the inquiry at WIRED's request.

Committee members who voted to authorize what the resolution called a "limited" strike averaged $72,850 in defense campaign financing from the pot. Committee members who voted against the resolution averaged $39,770, according to the data.

Show me the Money nothing wrong with this. :)

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 02:37:47 PM
And those on the receiving end of American involvement are saying "no".

Quote
Qasioun Mountain, a symbol of Damascus and Syria, is home to many security and military buildings and institutions and thus is expected to be one of the targets for the airstrikes. Protesters rallying beside the place called themselves a "human shield" and hold banners featuring slogans such as "No more American bombing democracy" and "Hands off Syria".

"We are here to express our loyalty to our country in the face of American threats. We don't want what they did in Iraq over chemical weapons claims to be done in our country," one of the rally participants told RT.

(http://i.imgur.com/npMpwRw.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/g1IxQWe.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/21sNZNo.jpg)


http://rt.com/news/syria-activists-us-bombing-380/

CC... you realize in a civil war there are usually at least two sides... one side supporting the current regime (your picture) and those who do not... most of them are in refugee camps

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69609000/jpg/_69609654_019143441-1.jpg)

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 05, 2013, 03:44:16 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 02:37:47 PM
And those on the receiving end of American involvement are saying "no".

Quote
Qasioun Mountain, a symbol of Damascus and Syria, is home to many security and military buildings and institutions and thus is expected to be one of the targets for the airstrikes. Protesters rallying beside the place called themselves a "human shield" and hold banners featuring slogans such as "No more American bombing democracy" and "Hands off Syria".

"We are here to express our loyalty to our country in the face of American threats. We don't want what they did in Iraq over chemical weapons claims to be done in our country," one of the rally participants told RT.

(http://i.imgur.com/npMpwRw.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/g1IxQWe.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/21sNZNo.jpg)


http://rt.com/news/syria-activists-us-bombing-380/

CC... you realize in a civil war there are usually at least two sides... one side supporting the current regime (your picture) and those who do not... most of them are in refugee camps

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69609000/jpg/_69609654_019143441-1.jpg)

Certainly I realize this and that realization is just another aspect to my feeling that the U.S. does not belong in the civil war going on in Syria.  We don't know what they really see as the best outcome for their country and they need to decide how much of their own blood they are willing to spill to find out.

The United States had to face down it's own internal conflicts that ended in the Civil War that cost us over 600,000 lives.  The only people who could save us from ourselves was us.  The same thing holds true for Syria.  They need to deal with their own internal conflicts.  We cannot force an outcome and have that be a lasting solution.  The outcomes that last are born from within. 

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 05, 2013, 03:44:16 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 02:37:47 PM
And those on the receiving end of American involvement are saying "no".

Quote
Qasioun Mountain, a symbol of Damascus and Syria, is home to many security and military buildings and institutions and thus is expected to be one of the targets for the airstrikes. Protesters rallying beside the place called themselves a "human shield" and hold banners featuring slogans such as "No more American bombing democracy" and "Hands off Syria".

"We are here to express our loyalty to our country in the face of American threats. We don't want what they did in Iraq over chemical weapons claims to be done in our country," one of the rally participants told RT.

(http://i.imgur.com/npMpwRw.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/g1IxQWe.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/21sNZNo.jpg)


http://rt.com/news/syria-activists-us-bombing-380/

CC... you realize in a civil war there are usually at least two sides... one side supporting the current regime (your picture) and those who do not... most of them are in refugee camps

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69609000/jpg/_69609654_019143441-1.jpg)

+1000

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 03:49:12 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 05, 2013, 03:44:16 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 02:37:47 PM
And those on the receiving end of American involvement are saying "no".

Quote
Qasioun Mountain, a symbol of Damascus and Syria, is home to many security and military buildings and institutions and thus is expected to be one of the targets for the airstrikes. Protesters rallying beside the place called themselves a "human shield" and hold banners featuring slogans such as "No more American bombing democracy" and "Hands off Syria".

"We are here to express our loyalty to our country in the face of American threats. We don't want what they did in Iraq over chemical weapons claims to be done in our country," one of the rally participants told RT.

(http://i.imgur.com/npMpwRw.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/g1IxQWe.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/21sNZNo.jpg)


http://rt.com/news/syria-activists-us-bombing-380/

CC... you realize in a civil war there are usually at least two sides... one side supporting the current regime (your picture) and those who do not... most of them are in refugee camps

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69609000/jpg/_69609654_019143441-1.jpg)

Certainly I realize this and that realization is just another aspect to my feeling that the U.S. does not belong in the civil war going on in Syria.  We don't know what they really see as the best outcome for their country and they need to decide how much of their own blood they are willing to spill to find out.

The United States had to face down it's own internal conflicts that ended in the Civil War that cost us over 600,000 lives.  The only people who could save us from ourselves was us.  The same thing holds true for Syria.  They need to deal with their own internal conflicts.  We cannot force an outcome and have that be a lasting solution.  The outcomes that last are born from within. 

Got to love "creative" cut and posting above that focuses only on "part" of what was a complete dialog.  ::)   Here is the totality of my conversation with a "competent" individual.  ;)

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 04:08:31 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 03:49:12 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 05, 2013, 03:44:16 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 02:37:47 PM
And those on the receiving end of American involvement are saying "no".

Quote
Qasioun Mountain, a symbol of Damascus and Syria, is home to many security and military buildings and institutions and thus is expected to be one of the targets for the airstrikes. Protesters rallying beside the place called themselves a "human shield" and hold banners featuring slogans such as "No more American bombing democracy" and "Hands off Syria".

"We are here to express our loyalty to our country in the face of American threats. We don't want what they did in Iraq over chemical weapons claims to be done in our country," one of the rally participants told RT.

(http://i.imgur.com/npMpwRw.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/g1IxQWe.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/21sNZNo.jpg)


http://rt.com/news/syria-activists-us-bombing-380/

CC... you realize in a civil war there are usually at least two sides... one side supporting the current regime (your picture) and those who do not... most of them are in refugee camps

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69609000/jpg/_69609654_019143441-1.jpg)

Certainly I realize this and that realization is just another aspect to my feeling that the U.S. does not belong in the civil war going on in Syria.  We don't know what they really see as the best outcome for their country and they need to decide how much of their own blood they are willing to spill to find out.

The United States had to face down it's own internal conflicts that ended in the Civil War that cost us over 600,000 lives.  The only people who could save us from ourselves was us.  The same thing holds true for Syria.  They need to deal with their own internal conflicts.  We cannot force an outcome and have that be a lasting solution.  The outcomes that last are born from within. 

Got to love "creative" cut and posting above that focuses only on "part" of what was a complete dialog.  ::)   Here is the totality of my conversation with a "competent" individual.  ;)

Here is the totality of my conversation with a "competent" individual.  (http://d2yhexj5rb8c94.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/styles/sliderimage_crop/public/mediaimages/gallery/2013/Aug/Mideast_Syria__systems@deccanmail-2.jpg)

(CNN) -- British military scientists found traces of sarin gas in soil and clothing taken from a patient treated near the site of an alleged chemical weapons attack outside Syria's capital, the prime minister's office said Thursday.

Scientists at the Porton Down military laboratory concluded the samples were unlikely to have been faked, and Britain is sharing its findings with the United Nations, the office said.

The revelation is the most specific statement by British officials regarding the chemical they believe was used in the August 21 attack on a rebel stronghold near Damascus, though the office didn't explicitly say who was responsible. U.S. officials have, blaming Syrian government forces for an attack they say left more than 1,400 people dead, many of them children.

The British statement is not the first allegation that sarin gas -- an extremely volatile nerve agent that can kill -- has been used in Syria's gruesome, two-year civil war.  http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 04, 2013, 06:08:25 PM
1. Did you ever ask yourself why Assad would use chemical weapons? Yes he knows the Civil War isn't going away anytime soon. He used the Chemical Weapons feeling he has Big Brother Iran and Russia on his side that the Americans are not going to bomb his country? 2. Can you imagine a scenario where al Quaeda militants. I hope you don't believe these none humans over President Obama? 3. UN wasn't able to definitively say who launched the chemical attack. The UN has it's own agenda they want everybody to hold hands and sing? We are the World?

1.  That doesn't make sense to me.  But I guess if Assad is a madman it wouldn't have to make sense to anyone. 
2.  I don't know who to believe.  I believe that Obama and Kerry and the rest of the US government have demonstrated a willingness to lie to push an agenda.  I know that Putin is a liar.  And I don't doubt that Assad and the al Qaeda militants are liars.  So I don't know who to believe in this scenario.
3.  Yes, the UN has its own agenda.  So does the US - it's usually about money.  Even the Pope said that military strikes would be futile and there are other ways to handle this.  But he's got his own agenda too. 

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 01:37:11 PM
Anyone one think Russia's leadership will back off their support of Syria?  Is it worth finding out?

Exactly.  And I think the Chinese are sending a couple of ships over too. 

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 01:52:41 PM

Quote from: acme54321 on September 05, 2013, 01:49:32 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 01:46:54 PM

Quote from: acme54321 on September 05, 2013, 01:43:38 PM
Do they revoke Nobel Peace prizes for inciting WWIII?

They damn well should.  :(

Let's be honest, they shouldn't have given it in the first place.

And to be very truthful it is worth remembering that Obama did not himself think he deserved the prize and said as much.

I think the Nobel Committee awarded him the prize as an attempt to paint him into a corner.  I think they thought a little too highly of themselves and figured "if we make him a Nobel Peace Prize winner he wouldn't dare escalate any wars."  Suckas. 

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 02:04:17 PM
Then there are the "questionable" rebel fighters, likely embedded with many an Al Qaeda terrorist among others.  They are not all about fighting for freedom and the brutality they bring to this war is frankly as chilling as that being meted out by Assad.  Anyone who is pretending that letting the rebel forces take control is going to make things better might be "horribly" mistaken.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

Quote
"For fifty years, they are companions to corruption," he said. "We swear to the Lord of the Throne, that this is our oath: We will take revenge."

The moment the poem ended, the commander, known as "the Uncle," fired a bullet into the back of the first prisoner's head. His gunmen followed suit, promptly killing all the men at their feet.

This scene, documented in a video smuggled out of Syria a few days ago by a former rebel who grew disgusted by the killings, offers a dark insight into how many rebels have adopted some of the same brutal and ruthless tactics as the regime they are trying to overthrow.

I saw a video last night of a couple of kids being executed for supporting Assad.  They looked to be about 12 years old.  Kerry himself said that about 20% of the rebels are al Qaeda, so you can be sure the number is higher.  But even if it's 20%...these are the people our soldiers are going to be fighting alongside?  Oh that's right, we won't have any boots on the ground.  Ha.  Good one.

Quote from: Ajax on September 05, 2013, 05:47:10 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 02:04:17 PM
Then there are the "questionable" rebel fighters, likely embedded with many an Al Qaeda terrorist among others.  They are not all about fighting for freedom and the brutality they bring to this war is frankly as chilling as that being meted out by Assad.  Anyone who is pretending that letting the rebel forces take control is going to make things better might be "horribly" mistaken.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

Quote
"For fifty years, they are companions to corruption," he said. "We swear to the Lord of the Throne, that this is our oath: We will take revenge."

The moment the poem ended, the commander, known as "the Uncle," fired a bullet into the back of the first prisoner's head. His gunmen followed suit, promptly killing all the men at their feet.

This scene, documented in a video smuggled out of Syria a few days ago by a former rebel who grew disgusted by the killings, offers a dark insight into how many rebels have adopted some of the same brutal and ruthless tactics as the regime they are trying to overthrow.

I saw a video last night of a couple of kids being executed for supporting Assad.  They looked to be about 12 years old.  Kerry himself said that about 20% of the rebels are al Qaeda, so you can be sure the number is higher.  But even if it's 20%...these are the people our soldiers are going to be fighting alongside?  Oh that's right, we won't have any boots on the ground.  Ha.  Good one.

There is no upside to any of this and U.S. involvement will do nothing to change the dynamics of a very dysfunctional middle east.  The very idea that we as a nation are contemplating giving help to an organization or group embedded with Al Qaeda, the "worlds" enemy is frankly reprehensible.  I am amazed by the fantasy some in authority are telling themselves that leads them to believe that an entity that has used chemical weapons in the past, will not do so again after a potential strike.  When that happens, then what?  We all know what the "then what" is and it is all out war that could well lead to world war.  Then, everyone loses.

This Biden guy is pretty smart sometimes.  Like in 2007 when he was saying the President doesn't have authority to bomb another country without Congress' approval.  And like in 2007 when he was warning about how crazy it would be to bomb Syria.  Man, I wish this guy was around today to talk some sense into people! 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/biden-on-romne-in-2012-ready-for-war-with-syria (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/biden-on-romne-in-2012-ready-for-war-with-syria)

QuoteBiden On Romney In 2012: "Ready To Go To War" With Syria
He offered no specifics. Assad "will go."
posted on September 5, 2013 at 2:24pm EDT
Andrew Kaczynski
BuzzFeed Staff

During the presidential election last year Vice President Joe Biden attacked Mitt Romney for being "ready to go to war" in Syria. He offered no specifics.
"He said it was a mistake to set an end date for our warriors in Afghanistan and bring them home. He implies by the speech that he's ready to go to war in Syria and Iran," Biden said Sept. 2, 2012 speaking in York, Pennsylvania.
"He wants to move from cooperation to confrontation with Putin's Russia. And these guys say the president's out of touch? Out of touch? Swiss bank account, untold millions in the Cayman Islands. Who's out of touch, man?"
Biden more clearly defined his own Syria position in his vice presidential debate with Rep. Paul Ryan. He was asked why the need to intervene in Syria was not the same as in Libya where it was justified to prevent further massacres. (At that the time the death toll in Syria was 30,000. It has now passed 100,000 deaths.)
"Different country. It's a different country," Biden said. "It is five times as large geographically, it has one-fifth the population, that is Libya, one-fifth the population, five times as large geographically.It's in a part of the world where they're not going to see whatever would come from that war. It seep into a regional war."
"You're in a country that is heavily populated in the midst of the most dangerous area in the world. And, in fact, if in fact it blows up and the wrong people gain control, it's going to have impact on the entire region causing potentially regional wars," Biden added.
Biden said the Obama Administration was working with allies in the region to identify people to takeover in the "when" Assad fell.
"We are working hand and glove with the Turks, with the Jordanians, with the Saudis, and with all the people in the region attempting to identify the people who deserve the help so that when Assad goes — and he — there will be a legitimate government that follows on, not an Al Qaida-sponsored government that follows on."
Ryan and Biden said they agreed upon the Obama Administration's "red line" against chemical weapons.

Quote from: Ajax on September 05, 2013, 06:04:22 PM
This Biden guy is pretty smart sometimes.  Like in 2007 when he was saying the President doesn't have authority to bomb another country without Congress' approval.  And like in 2007 when he was warning about how crazy it would be to bomb Syria.  Man, I wish this guy was around today to talk some sense into people! 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/biden-on-romne-in-2012-ready-for-war-with-syria (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/biden-on-romne-in-2012-ready-for-war-with-syria)

QuoteBiden On Romney In 2012: "Ready To Go To War" With Syria
He offered no specifics. Assad "will go."
posted on September 5, 2013 at 2:24pm EDT
Andrew Kaczynski
BuzzFeed Staff

During the presidential election last year Vice President Joe Biden attacked Mitt Romney for being "ready to go to war" in Syria. He offered no specifics.
"He said it was a mistake to set an end date for our warriors in Afghanistan and bring them home. He implies by the speech that he's ready to go to war in Syria and Iran," Biden said Sept. 2, 2012 speaking in York, Pennsylvania.
"He wants to move from cooperation to confrontation with Putin's Russia. And these guys say the president's out of touch? Out of touch? Swiss bank account, untold millions in the Cayman Islands. Who's out of touch, man?"
Biden more clearly defined his own Syria position in his vice presidential debate with Rep. Paul Ryan. He was asked why the need to intervene in Syria was not the same as in Libya where it was justified to prevent further massacres. (At that the time the death toll in Syria was 30,000. It has now passed 100,000 deaths.)
"Different country. It's a different country," Biden said. "It is five times as large geographically, it has one-fifth the population, that is Libya, one-fifth the population, five times as large geographically.It's in a part of the world where they're not going to see whatever would come from that war. It seep into a regional war."
"You're in a country that is heavily populated in the midst of the most dangerous area in the world. And, in fact, if in fact it blows up and the wrong people gain control, it's going to have impact on the entire region causing potentially regional wars," Biden added.
Biden said the Obama Administration was working with allies in the region to identify people to takeover in the "when" Assad fell.
"We are working hand and glove with the Turks, with the Jordanians, with the Saudis, and with all the people in the region attempting to identify the people who deserve the help so that when Assad goes — and he — there will be a legitimate government that follows on, not an Al Qaida-sponsored government that follows on."
Ryan and Biden said they agreed upon the Obama Administration's "red line" against chemical weapons.

Isn't that the truth.

Quote from: Ajax on September 05, 2013, 05:41:28 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 04, 2013, 06:08:25 PM
1. Did you ever ask yourself why Assad would use chemical weapons? Yes he knows the Civil War isn't going away anytime soon. He used the Chemical Weapons feeling he has Big Brother Iran and Russia on his side that the Americans are not going to bomb his country? 2. Can you imagine a scenario where al Quaeda militants. I hope you don't believe these none humans over President Obama? 3. UN wasn't able to definitively say who launched the chemical attack. The UN has it's own agenda they want everybody to hold hands and sing? We are the World?

1.  That doesn't make sense to me.  But I guess if Assad is a madman it wouldn't have to make sense to anyone. 
2.  I don't know who to believe.  I believe that Obama and Kerry and the rest of the US government have demonstrated a willingness to lie to push an agenda.  I know that Putin is a liar.  And I don't doubt that Assad and the al Qaeda militants are liars.  So I don't know who to believe in this scenario.
3.  Yes, the UN has its own agenda.  So does the US - it's usually about money.  Even the Pope said that military strikes would be futile and there are other ways to handle this.  But he's got his own agenda too.

Have you followed the Assad Family over the years? His father was a butcher and they run their country like a dictatorship. A lot like Russia and Putin? I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall and listen to Putin and Obama today behind closed doors? But your right the U.S. has their own agenda. And I like this Pope but I'm not Catholic I'm a Methodist. So I don't follow the same teaching as the Catholics are taught. 

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 06:00:44 PM

Quote from: Ajax on September 05, 2013, 05:47:10 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 05, 2013, 02:04:17 PM
Then there are the "questionable" rebel fighters, likely embedded with many an Al Qaeda terrorist among others.  They are not all about fighting for freedom and the brutality they bring to this war is frankly as chilling as that being meted out by Assad.  Anyone who is pretending that letting the rebel forces take control is going to make things better might be "horribly" mistaken.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

Quote
"For fifty years, they are companions to corruption," he said. "We swear to the Lord of the Throne, that this is our oath: We will take revenge."

The moment the poem ended, the commander, known as "the Uncle," fired a bullet into the back of the first prisoner's head. His gunmen followed suit, promptly killing all the men at their feet.

This scene, documented in a video smuggled out of Syria a few days ago by a former rebel who grew disgusted by the killings, offers a dark insight into how many rebels have adopted some of the same brutal and ruthless tactics as the regime they are trying to overthrow.

I saw a video last night of a couple of kids being executed for supporting Assad.  They looked to be about 12 years old.  Kerry himself said that about 20% of the rebels are al Qaeda, so you can be sure the number is higher.  But even if it's 20%...these are the people our soldiers are going to be fighting alongside?  Oh that's right, we won't have any boots on the ground.  Ha.  Good one.

There is no upside to any of this and U.S. involvement will do nothing to change the dynamics of a very dysfunctional middle east.  The very idea that we as a nation are contemplating giving help to an organization or group embedded with Al Qaeda, the "worlds" enemy is frankly reprehensible.  I am amazed by the fantasy some in authority are telling themselves that leads them to believe that an entity that has used chemical weapons in the past, will not do so again after a potential strike.  When that happens, then what?  We all know what the "then what" is and it is all out war that could well lead to world war.  Then, everyone loses.

Not True Diane there has been two other World Wars. WWI  & WWII and everyone didn't lose. Was it OK for Hitler to do what he did? If we wouldn't have gotten into WWII how do you think that War would have ended?

"God of our fathers, who by land and sea have ever lead us to victory, please continue your inspiring guidance in this the greatest of all conflicts. Strengthen my soul so that the weakening instinct of self-preservation, which besets all of us in battle, shall not blind me to my duty to my own manhood, to the glory of my calling, and to my responsibility to my fellow soldiers. Grant to our armed forces that disciplined valor and mutual confidence which insures success in war. Let me not mourn for the men who have died fighting, but rather let me be glad that such heroes have lived. If it be my lot to die, let me do so with courage and honor in a manner which will bring the greatest harm to the enemy, and please, oh Lord, protect and guide those I shall leave behind. Give us the victory, Lord."

General George S. Patton quotes (American General in World War I and II, 1885-1945)

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 05, 2013, 09:25:04 PM
Have you followed the Assad Family over the years? His father was a butcher and they run their country like a dictatorship. A lot like Russia and Putin? I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall and listen to Putin and Obama today behind closed doors? But your right the U.S. has their own agenda. And I like this Pope but I'm not Catholic I'm a Methodist. So I don't follow the same teaching as the Catholics are taught.

The world is full of butchers and dictators, but I don't think it's the United States' job to get rid of all of them.   Heck, half the time we put them into power or propped them up.  We were Murbarak's biggest supporter just a couple of years ago, until that became inconvenient. 

If we're going to get rid of every dictator out there, then we're going to run out of money and lose a lot of young Americans in the process.  The fact is, Syria doesn't pose a credible threat to the US or to US interest, and that's where it ends for me.  If the UN wants to go in after Assad, then fine.  That's what they were created for anyway.  But for the US to go in alone, without any other freaking country in the world joining us?  That's ridiculous. 

Quote from: Ajax on September 05, 2013, 10:02:53 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 05, 2013, 09:25:04 PM
Have you followed the Assad Family over the years? His father was a butcher and they run their country like a dictatorship. A lot like Russia and Putin? I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall and listen to Putin and Obama today behind closed doors? But your right the U.S. has their own agenda. And I like this Pope but I'm not Catholic I'm a Methodist. So I don't follow the same teaching as the Catholics are taught.

The world is full of butchers and dictators, but I don't think it's the United States' job to get rid of all of them.   Heck, half the time we put them into power or propped them up.  We were Murbarak's biggest supporter just a couple of years ago, until that became inconvenient. 

If we're going to get rid of every dictator out there, then we're going to run out of money and lose a lot of young Americans in the process.  The fact is, Syria doesn't pose a credible threat to the US or to US interest, and that's where it ends for me.  If the UN wants to go in after Assad, then fine.  That's what they were created for anyway.  But for the US to go in alone, without any other freaking country in the world joining us?  That's ridiculous.

Ajax if you and Diane win and we don't go into Syria it will only be for a short time before this Powder Keg pops. So lets wait and see what happens next week?

If none of the previous listed reasons to not attack Syria did not convince you... then this should.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/05/iran-threatens-brutal-attacks-on-americans-obama-family-if-us-hits-syria/

QuoteIran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria

As Congress debates whether to support President Obama's call for a limited strike against Syria for the alleged use of chemical weapons, Iran is vowing to back Bashar al-Assad's regime to the hilt and threatening to unleash terrorism should the U.S. strike.

Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's Quds Forces, Wednesday told the Assembly of Experts — the body that chooses the supreme leader — that "[w]e will support Syria to the end."

And in an unprecedented statement, a former Iranian official has warned of mass abductions and brutal killings of American citizens around the world and the rape and killing of one of Obama's daughters should the United States attack Syria.

Alireza Forghani, the former governor of southern Iran's Kish Province, threw down the gauntlet last week. Forghani is an analyst and strategy specialist in the supreme leader's camp and closely aligned with Mehdi Taeb, who heads the regime's Ammar Strategic Base, a radical think thank, and thus speaks with the blessing of the Islamic regime.

"Hopefully Obama will be pigheaded enough to attack Syria, and then we will see the ... loss of U.S. interests [through terrorist attacks]," he threatened. "In just 21 hours [after the attack on Syria], a family member of every U.S. minister [department secretary], U.S. ambassadors, U.S. military commanders around the world will be abducted. And then 18 hours later, videos of their amputation will be spread [around the world]."

A similar act was committed in a video of the torture of William Buckley, a CIA station chief who was abducted in Beirut in 1984 and later killed by Hezbollah on Iran's order. That video was dropped off at the U.S. Embassy in Athens. Former CIA Director William Casey later described what he saw in the video: "They had done more than ruin his body. His eyes made it clear his mind had been played with. It was horrific, medieval and barbarous."

In addition, Forghani warned, "We should remind Obama that if you are a bastard, there are other bastards all around the world who can assault Sasha." The statement is written in both English and Farsi, but in the Farsi version, Forghani clearly stated that Sasha will be raped by someone who has been able to get close to the Obama family.

"Obama will attack Syria and then you'll go to hell, and the world's public opinion will accept that you deserve to be attacked and assaulted, so please attack," Forghani concluded.

Forghani, though not holding an official position within the regime but in a country that tightly censures the media, has stated his radical positions in articles that have been run by the majority of the regime's media and has written several commentaries on the need for the destruction of Israel. One such article described the need for the Islamic Republic to have nuclear weapons and in another he laid out the legal case for the annihilation of Israel and all Jewish people. The latter, which ran in all of the regime's media outlets, called for a pre-emptive strike on Israel. Based on this pre-emptive doctrine, he suggested, several "ground zero" points of Israel must be destroyed and its people annihilated.

Forghani cited the last census by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics that shows Israel has a population of 7.5 million citizens of which a majority, 5.7 million, are Jewish. The census breaks down the districts with the highest concentration of Jewish people, indicating that three cities, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa, contain over 60 percent of the Jewish population. Forghani wrote that Iran could target the three with its Shahab 3 ballistic missiles, killing all of its inhabitants.

Forghani's threats last Wednesday were further emphasized by the chief commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad Ali Jafari, who on the same day told the regime's Fars News Agency that "America's vision in its ability for a limited strike in Syria is an illusion. The reactions will be beyond Syria's borders ... [and] those who participate with America in this matter will soon witness threats on their national security."

Taeb, the head of the Ammar Strategic Base, had previously stated that, "Syria is the 35th province [of Iran] and a strategic province for us ... if we lose Syria, we won't be able to hold Tehran."

Regime officials, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have made it clear on many occasions that Assad's regime is their red line and that any attack on Syria will have grave consequences for Israel and America.

Obama has stated that he is determined to punish Assad for the alleged recent chemical attack on his own people that killed more than 1,400 civilians, hundreds of them children.

http://www.youtube.com/v/RtzOmx55c8Y

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 06, 2013, 07:37:00 AM
If none of the previous listed reasons to not attack Syria did not convince you... then this should.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/05/iran-threatens-brutal-attacks-on-americans-obama-family-if-us-hits-syria/

QuoteIran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria

As Congress debates whether to support President Obama's call for a limited strike against Syria for the alleged use of chemical weapons, Iran is vowing to back Bashar al-Assad's regime to the hilt and threatening to unleash terrorism should the U.S. strike.

Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's Quds Forces, Wednesday told the Assembly of Experts — the body that chooses the supreme leader — that "[w]e will support Syria to the end."

And in an unprecedented statement, a former Iranian official has warned of mass abductions and brutal killings of American citizens around the world and the rape and killing of one of Obama's daughters should the United States attack Syria.

Alireza Forghani, the former governor of southern Iran's Kish Province, threw down the gauntlet last week. Forghani is an analyst and strategy specialist in the supreme leader's camp and closely aligned with Mehdi Taeb, who heads the regime's Ammar Strategic Base, a radical think thank, and thus speaks with the blessing of the Islamic regime.

"Hopefully Obama will be pigheaded enough to attack Syria, and then we will see the ... loss of U.S. interests [through terrorist attacks]," he threatened. "In just 21 hours [after the attack on Syria], a family member of every U.S. minister [department secretary], U.S. ambassadors, U.S. military commanders around the world will be abducted. And then 18 hours later, videos of their amputation will be spread [around the world]."

A similar act was committed in a video of the torture of William Buckley, a CIA station chief who was abducted in Beirut in 1984 and later killed by Hezbollah on Iran's order. That video was dropped off at the U.S. Embassy in Athens. Former CIA Director William Casey later described what he saw in the video: "They had done more than ruin his body. His eyes made it clear his mind had been played with. It was horrific, medieval and barbarous."

In addition, Forghani warned, "We should remind Obama that if you are a bastard, there are other bastards all around the world who can assault Sasha." The statement is written in both English and Farsi, but in the Farsi version, Forghani clearly stated that Sasha will be raped by someone who has been able to get close to the Obama family.

"Obama will attack Syria and then you'll go to hell, and the world's public opinion will accept that you deserve to be attacked and assaulted, so please attack," Forghani concluded.

Forghani, though not holding an official position within the regime but in a country that tightly censures the media, has stated his radical positions in articles that have been run by the majority of the regime's media and has written several commentaries on the need for the destruction of Israel. One such article described the need for the Islamic Republic to have nuclear weapons and in another he laid out the legal case for the annihilation of Israel and all Jewish people. The latter, which ran in all of the regime's media outlets, called for a pre-emptive strike on Israel. Based on this pre-emptive doctrine, he suggested, several "ground zero" points of Israel must be destroyed and its people annihilated.

Forghani cited the last census by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics that shows Israel has a population of 7.5 million citizens of which a majority, 5.7 million, are Jewish. The census breaks down the districts with the highest concentration of Jewish people, indicating that three cities, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa, contain over 60 percent of the Jewish population. Forghani wrote that Iran could target the three with its Shahab 3 ballistic missiles, killing all of its inhabitants.

Forghani's threats last Wednesday were further emphasized by the chief commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad Ali Jafari, who on the same day told the regime's Fars News Agency that "America's vision in its ability for a limited strike in Syria is an illusion. The reactions will be beyond Syria's borders ... [and] those who participate with America in this matter will soon witness threats on their national security."

Taeb, the head of the Ammar Strategic Base, had previously stated that, "Syria is the 35th province [of Iran] and a strategic province for us ... if we lose Syria, we won't be able to hold Tehran."

Regime officials, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have made it clear on many occasions that Assad's regime is their red line and that any attack on Syria will have grave consequences for Israel and America.

Obama has stated that he is determined to punish Assad for the alleged recent chemical attack on his own people that killed more than 1,400 civilians, hundreds of them children.

I'm no fan of Obama and don't think we should intervene in Syria, but if Iran were to even try to kill one of the President's daughters, I just might support turning Tehran into a glass parking lot just to get rid of the radical leaders there. 

Yes threats from Iran should not dictate our foreign policy.

Again I am not for Military action here, freezing assets, world court and embargoes should be first courses of action. Should have happened two years ago or at least when Syria first crossed the Red line. 

The insanity that comes out of Iran is laughable. 

Quote from: carpnter on September 06, 2013, 08:41:37 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 06, 2013, 07:37:00 AM
If none of the previous listed reasons to not attack Syria did not convince you... then this should.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/05/iran-threatens-brutal-attacks-on-americans-obama-family-if-us-hits-syria/

QuoteIran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria

As Congress debates whether to support President Obama's call for a limited strike against Syria for the alleged use of chemical weapons, Iran is vowing to back Bashar al-Assad's regime to the hilt and threatening to unleash terrorism should the U.S. strike.

Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's Quds Forces, Wednesday told the Assembly of Experts — the body that chooses the supreme leader — that "[w]e will support Syria to the end."

And in an unprecedented statement, a former Iranian official has warned of mass abductions and brutal killings of American citizens around the world and the rape and killing of one of Obama's daughters should the United States attack Syria.

Alireza Forghani, the former governor of southern Iran's Kish Province, threw down the gauntlet last week. Forghani is an analyst and strategy specialist in the supreme leader's camp and closely aligned with Mehdi Taeb, who heads the regime's Ammar Strategic Base, a radical think thank, and thus speaks with the blessing of the Islamic regime.

"Hopefully Obama will be pigheaded enough to attack Syria, and then we will see the ... loss of U.S. interests [through terrorist attacks]," he threatened. "In just 21 hours [after the attack on Syria], a family member of every U.S. minister [department secretary], U.S. ambassadors, U.S. military commanders around the world will be abducted. And then 18 hours later, videos of their amputation will be spread [around the world]."

A similar act was committed in a video of the torture of William Buckley, a CIA station chief who was abducted in Beirut in 1984 and later killed by Hezbollah on Iran's order. That video was dropped off at the U.S. Embassy in Athens. Former CIA Director William Casey later described what he saw in the video: "They had done more than ruin his body. His eyes made it clear his mind had been played with. It was horrific, medieval and barbarous."

In addition, Forghani warned, "We should remind Obama that if you are a bastard, there are other bastards all around the world who can assault Sasha." The statement is written in both English and Farsi, but in the Farsi version, Forghani clearly stated that Sasha will be raped by someone who has been able to get close to the Obama family.

"Obama will attack Syria and then you'll go to hell, and the world's public opinion will accept that you deserve to be attacked and assaulted, so please attack," Forghani concluded.

Forghani, though not holding an official position within the regime but in a country that tightly censures the media, has stated his radical positions in articles that have been run by the majority of the regime's media and has written several commentaries on the need for the destruction of Israel. One such article described the need for the Islamic Republic to have nuclear weapons and in another he laid out the legal case for the annihilation of Israel and all Jewish people. The latter, which ran in all of the regime's media outlets, called for a pre-emptive strike on Israel. Based on this pre-emptive doctrine, he suggested, several "ground zero" points of Israel must be destroyed and its people annihilated.

Forghani cited the last census by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics that shows Israel has a population of 7.5 million citizens of which a majority, 5.7 million, are Jewish. The census breaks down the districts with the highest concentration of Jewish people, indicating that three cities, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa, contain over 60 percent of the Jewish population. Forghani wrote that Iran could target the three with its Shahab 3 ballistic missiles, killing all of its inhabitants.

Forghani's threats last Wednesday were further emphasized by the chief commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad Ali Jafari, who on the same day told the regime's Fars News Agency that "America's vision in its ability for a limited strike in Syria is an illusion. The reactions will be beyond Syria's borders ... [and] those who participate with America in this matter will soon witness threats on their national security."

Taeb, the head of the Ammar Strategic Base, had previously stated that, "Syria is the 35th province [of Iran] and a strategic province for us ... if we lose Syria, we won't be able to hold Tehran."

Regime officials, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have made it clear on many occasions that Assad's regime is their red line and that any attack on Syria will have grave consequences for Israel and America.

Obama has stated that he is determined to punish Assad for the alleged recent chemical attack on his own people that killed more than 1,400 civilians, hundreds of them children.

I'm no fan of Obama and don't think we should intervene in Syria, but if Iran were to even try to kill one of the President's daughters, I just might support turning Tehran into a glass parking lot just to get rid of the radical leaders there.

(I just might support turning Tehran into a glass parking lot just to get rid of the radical leaders there.) +100,000,000

Quote from: Ajax on September 05, 2013, 10:02:53 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 05, 2013, 09:25:04 PM
Have you followed the Assad Family over the years? His father was a butcher and they run their country like a dictatorship. A lot like Russia and Putin? I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall and listen to Putin and Obama today behind closed doors? But your right the U.S. has their own agenda. And I like this Pope but I'm not Catholic I'm a Methodist. So I don't follow the same teaching as the Catholics are taught.

The world is full of butchers and dictators, but I don't think it's the United States' job to get rid of all of them.   Heck, half the time we put them into power or propped them up.  We were Murbarak's biggest supporter just a couple of years ago, until that became inconvenient. 

If we're going to get rid of every dictator out there, then we're going to run out of money and lose a lot of young Americans in the process.  The fact is, Syria doesn't pose a credible threat to the US or to US interest, and that's where it ends for me.  If the UN wants to go in after Assad, then fine.  That's what they were created for anyway.  But for the US to go in alone, without any other freaking country in the world joining us?  That's ridiculous. 

Exactly Ajax. 

Quote from: JeffreyS on September 06, 2013, 09:52:55 AM
Yes threats from Iran should not dictate our foreign policy.

Again I am not for Military action here, freezing assets, world court and embargoes should be first courses of action. Should have happened two years ago or at least when Syria first crossed the Red line. 

Agreed and agreed.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 06, 2013, 07:37:00 AM
If none of the previous listed reasons to not attack Syria did not convince you... then this should.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/05/iran-threatens-brutal-attacks-on-americans-obama-family-if-us-hits-syria/

QuoteIran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria

As Congress debates whether to support President Obama's call for a limited strike against Syria for the alleged use of chemical weapons, Iran is vowing to back Bashar al-Assad's regime to the hilt and threatening to unleash terrorism should the U.S. strike.

Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's Quds Forces, Wednesday told the Assembly of Experts — the body that chooses the supreme leader — that "[w]e will support Syria to the end."

And in an unprecedented statement, a former Iranian official has warned of mass abductions and brutal killings of American citizens around the world and the rape and killing of one of Obama's daughters should the United States attack Syria.

Alireza Forghani, the former governor of southern Iran's Kish Province, threw down the gauntlet last week. Forghani is an analyst and strategy specialist in the supreme leader's camp and closely aligned with Mehdi Taeb, who heads the regime's Ammar Strategic Base, a radical think thank, and thus speaks with the blessing of the Islamic regime.

"Hopefully Obama will be pigheaded enough to attack Syria, and then we will see the ... loss of U.S. interests [through terrorist attacks]," he threatened. "In just 21 hours [after the attack on Syria], a family member of every U.S. minister [department secretary], U.S. ambassadors, U.S. military commanders around the world will be abducted. And then 18 hours later, videos of their amputation will be spread [around the world]."

A similar act was committed in a video of the torture of William Buckley, a CIA station chief who was abducted in Beirut in 1984 and later killed by Hezbollah on Iran's order. That video was dropped off at the U.S. Embassy in Athens. Former CIA Director William Casey later described what he saw in the video: "They had done more than ruin his body. His eyes made it clear his mind had been played with. It was horrific, medieval and barbarous."

In addition, Forghani warned, "We should remind Obama that if you are a bastard, there are other bastards all around the world who can assault Sasha." The statement is written in both English and Farsi, but in the Farsi version, Forghani clearly stated that Sasha will be raped by someone who has been able to get close to the Obama family.

"Obama will attack Syria and then you'll go to hell, and the world's public opinion will accept that you deserve to be attacked and assaulted, so please attack," Forghani concluded.

Forghani, though not holding an official position within the regime but in a country that tightly censures the media, has stated his radical positions in articles that have been run by the majority of the regime's media and has written several commentaries on the need for the destruction of Israel. One such article described the need for the Islamic Republic to have nuclear weapons and in another he laid out the legal case for the annihilation of Israel and all Jewish people. The latter, which ran in all of the regime's media outlets, called for a pre-emptive strike on Israel. Based on this pre-emptive doctrine, he suggested, several "ground zero" points of Israel must be destroyed and its people annihilated.

Forghani cited the last census by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics that shows Israel has a population of 7.5 million citizens of which a majority, 5.7 million, are Jewish. The census breaks down the districts with the highest concentration of Jewish people, indicating that three cities, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa, contain over 60 percent of the Jewish population. Forghani wrote that Iran could target the three with its Shahab 3 ballistic missiles, killing all of its inhabitants.

Forghani's threats last Wednesday were further emphasized by the chief commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad Ali Jafari, who on the same day told the regime's Fars News Agency that "America's vision in its ability for a limited strike in Syria is an illusion. The reactions will be beyond Syria's borders ... [and] those who participate with America in this matter will soon witness threats on their national security."

Taeb, the head of the Ammar Strategic Base, had previously stated that, "Syria is the 35th province [of Iran] and a strategic province for us ... if we lose Syria, we won't be able to hold Tehran."

Regime officials, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have made it clear on many occasions that Assad's regime is their red line and that any attack on Syria will have grave consequences for Israel and America.

Obama has stated that he is determined to punish Assad for the alleged recent chemical attack on his own people that killed more than 1,400 civilians, hundreds of them children.

This is chilling and displays the kind of crazy the U.S. can expect with any action in Syria.  The list of U.S. haters is getting longer and longer and this the result of attempting to police the world.  We can't do it and should not do it.  Of course we defend ourselves against attack and we should also try very hard to mitigate issues of "National Security".  Syria is no threat to us in either circumstance in spite of the hype for those who want to use missiles to strike a country in the midst of a civil war.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 06, 2013, 11:41:44 AM

Quote from: Ajax on September 05, 2013, 10:02:53 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 05, 2013, 09:25:04 PM
Have you followed the Assad Family over the years? His father was a butcher and they run their country like a dictatorship. A lot like Russia and Putin? I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall and listen to Putin and Obama today behind closed doors? But your right the U.S. has their own agenda. And I like this Pope but I'm not Catholic I'm a Methodist. So I don't follow the same teaching as the Catholics are taught.

The world is full of butchers and dictators, but I don't think it's the United States' job to get rid of all of them.   Heck, half the time we put them into power or propped them up.  We were Murbarak's biggest supporter just a couple of years ago, until that became inconvenient. 

If we're going to get rid of every dictator out there, then we're going to run out of money and lose a lot of young Americans in the process.  The fact is, Syria doesn't pose a credible threat to the US or to US interest, and that's where it ends for me.  If the UN wants to go in after Assad, then fine.  That's what they were created for anyway.  But for the US to go in alone, without any other freaking country in the world joining us?  That's ridiculous. 

Exactly Ajax.

France plans to help and once we are getting down and dirty some other countries will help us out. :)

Man, you're just choping at the bit to send in some Tomahawks....

Funny if this was old GW a few years ago there are a lot of currently qilent posters on this site who would be raging right now.

Quote from: acme54321 on September 06, 2013, 12:59:10 PM
Man, you're just choping at the bit to send in some Tomahawks....

Funny if this was old GW a few years ago there are a lot of currently qilent posters on this site who would be raging right now.

What you don't seem to Understand "acme54321" all of this has been in the planning stages for years? If the attack on Syria doesn't happen soon. It will happen before Obama leaves office. This area is a Powder Keg with a very short fuse. I don't want World War III but to believe all we have to do is nothing because you feel it isn't our problem? Is NUTS!

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 06, 2013, 07:37:00 AM
If none of the previous listed reasons to not attack Syria did not convince you... then this should.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/05/iran-threatens-brutal-attacks-on-americans-obama-family-if-us-hits-syria/

QuoteIran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria

As Congress debates whether to support President Obama's call for a limited strike against Syria for the alleged use of chemical weapons, Iran is vowing to back Bashar al-Assad's regime to the hilt and threatening to unleash terrorism should the U.S. strike.

Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's Quds Forces, Wednesday told the Assembly of Experts — the body that chooses the supreme leader — that "[w]e will support Syria to the end."

And in an unprecedented statement, a former Iranian official has warned of mass abductions and brutal killings of American citizens around the world and the rape and killing of one of Obama's daughters should the United States attack Syria.

Alireza Forghani, the former governor of southern Iran's Kish Province, threw down the gauntlet last week. Forghani is an analyst and strategy specialist in the supreme leader's camp and closely aligned with Mehdi Taeb, who heads the regime's Ammar Strategic Base, a radical think thank, and thus speaks with the blessing of the Islamic regime.

"Hopefully Obama will be pigheaded enough to attack Syria, and then we will see the ... loss of U.S. interests [through terrorist attacks]," he threatened. "In just 21 hours [after the attack on Syria], a family member of every U.S. minister [department secretary], U.S. ambassadors, U.S. military commanders around the world will be abducted. And then 18 hours later, videos of their amputation will be spread [around the world]."

A similar act was committed in a video of the torture of William Buckley, a CIA station chief who was abducted in Beirut in 1984 and later killed by Hezbollah on Iran's order. That video was dropped off at the U.S. Embassy in Athens. Former CIA Director William Casey later described what he saw in the video: "They had done more than ruin his body. His eyes made it clear his mind had been played with. It was horrific, medieval and barbarous."

In addition, Forghani warned, "We should remind Obama that if you are a bastard, there are other bastards all around the world who can assault Sasha." The statement is written in both English and Farsi, but in the Farsi version, Forghani clearly stated that Sasha will be raped by someone who has been able to get close to the Obama family.

"Obama will attack Syria and then you'll go to hell, and the world's public opinion will accept that you deserve to be attacked and assaulted, so please attack," Forghani concluded.

Forghani, though not holding an official position within the regime but in a country that tightly censures the media, has stated his radical positions in articles that have been run by the majority of the regime's media and has written several commentaries on the need for the destruction of Israel. One such article described the need for the Islamic Republic to have nuclear weapons and in another he laid out the legal case for the annihilation of Israel and all Jewish people. The latter, which ran in all of the regime's media outlets, called for a pre-emptive strike on Israel. Based on this pre-emptive doctrine, he suggested, several "ground zero" points of Israel must be destroyed and its people annihilated.

Forghani cited the last census by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics that shows Israel has a population of 7.5 million citizens of which a majority, 5.7 million, are Jewish. The census breaks down the districts with the highest concentration of Jewish people, indicating that three cities, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa, contain over 60 percent of the Jewish population. Forghani wrote that Iran could target the three with its Shahab 3 ballistic missiles, killing all of its inhabitants.

Forghani's threats last Wednesday were further emphasized by the chief commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad Ali Jafari, who on the same day told the regime's Fars News Agency that "America's vision in its ability for a limited strike in Syria is an illusion. The reactions will be beyond Syria's borders ... [and] those who participate with America in this matter will soon witness threats on their national security."

Taeb, the head of the Ammar Strategic Base, had previously stated that, "Syria is the 35th province [of Iran] and a strategic province for us ... if we lose Syria, we won't be able to hold Tehran."

Regime officials, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have made it clear on many occasions that Assad's regime is their red line and that any attack on Syria will have grave consequences for Israel and America.

Obama has stated that he is determined to punish Assad for the alleged recent chemical attack on his own people that killed more than 1,400 civilians, hundreds of them children.

Ugh - that is sickening.  This person is crazy.  The article says that he "speaks with the blessing of the Islamic regime" but I wonder.  This just made me sick to my stomach reading it. 

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 06, 2013, 12:36:45 PM
France plans to help and once we are getting down and dirty some other countries will help us out. :)

Hollande said he would like to do it but I think he's going to wait until the UN report comes out and I don't even think he's going to publicly speak about it until Congress votes next week. 

If we're relying on France to have our back, somehow that doesn't make me feel any better! ;) 

Yeah, when things get down and dirty I'm sure we can count on the Netherlands to send 45 troops and maybe Australia will send 20 translators to help.  Why would anyone jump into the quagmire after they realize that the US is stuck and we'll have to fight our way out of it? 

Quote from: Ajax on September 06, 2013, 01:39:53 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 06, 2013, 12:36:45 PM
France plans to help and once we are getting down and dirty some other countries will help us out. :)

Hollande said he would like to do it but I think he's going to wait until the UN report comes out and I don't even think he's going to publicly speak about it until Congress votes next week. 

If we're relying on France to have our back, somehow that doesn't make me feel any better! ;) 

Yeah, when things get down and dirty I'm sure we can count on the Netherlands to send 45 troops and maybe Australia will send 20 translators to help.  Why would anyone jump into the quagmire after they realize that the US is stuck and we'll have to fight our way out of it?

I will say this if we don't go in it's not going to be because what Iran would do? It will be because of the Modern Day Hippie and the Republicans other then John McCain and a few others. But this Powder Keg doesn't go away. One day the poo will hit the fan.

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 06, 2013, 01:52:37 PM
I will say this if we don't go in it's not going to be because what Iran would do? It will be because of the Modern Day Hippie and the Republicans other then John McCain and a few others. But this Powder Keg doesn't go away. One day the poo will hit the fan.

Seems like you just want the poo to hit the fan sooner rather than later.  :)

Quote from: Ajax on September 06, 2013, 02:08:42 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 06, 2013, 01:52:37 PM
I will say this if we don't go in it's not going to be because what Iran would do? It will be because of the Modern Day Hippie and the Republicans other then John McCain and a few others. But this Powder Keg doesn't go away. One day the poo will hit the fan.

Seems like you just want the poo to hit the fan sooner rather than later.  :)

;)

Ok well now Russia says if we go in they'll respond, and sends 8 warships over there. That's not a tinpot dictatorship we're used to going to war against, they can sit in a bunker and annihilate us the same as we can them. You've got to be kidding me, we're actually risking a real war over what, Syria? Why? I'm going to basically ignore this whole thing as hot air, everybody has too much to lose for it to actually turn into anything at this point.

^ kind of curious as to what you were describing as "tinpot" ... Look how long Iraq an Afghanistan conflicts were/have been, desert storm was longer than anticipated and Korea and Vietnam were worse than what Syria is ... But that isn't saying much. I agree we have no business there, but I cannot think of any "easy" military conflict we've engaged in the past.

Quote from: JayBird on September 06, 2013, 11:01:39 PM
^ kind of curious as to what you were describing as "tinpot" ... Look how long Iraq an Afghanistan conflicts were/have been, desert storm was longer than anticipated and Korea and Vietnam were worse than what Syria is ... But that isn't saying much. I agree we have no business there, but I cannot think of any "easy" military conflict we've engaged in the past.

Saddam Hussein was a classic tinpot dictator, no military strength to speak of. Russia's a different story. For what it's worth you may want to retrace the history of those two wars, we deposed their respective governments almost immediately, but then spent a decade fighting insurrection amongst the actual people who mostly didn't want us there. We didn't have a choice, after toppling their governments we realized 'oh wait a minute, they're surrounded by even more scary people who we like even less, and we'd rather Iran not take the place over the second we leave' so you then have to rebuild it and prop up a friendly government indefinitely.

Even if they didn't have backing from an actual power, or else assuming Obama makes some backroom deal with Putin to get him out of the way, then how is Syria going to turn out any different? And what makes that even remotely worth it? When it comes to that region; you broke it you bought it.

^ no I agree, now that I see what you were meaning. Of course I also believe that if we strike like we had done in Baghdad, then Assad will flee quickly. I think a lot of ppl think that and that's where the conflict comes, why should we spend another 10+ years trying to build them up too? They are proposing it as a punishment, but what do you do once the punishment has been delivered? Leave and let whomever calls dibs first take over so that we can go back in five years when WWIII is fully in action?

Sometimes, I really miss Slick Willy

(http://i.imgur.com/FdYCl6n.jpg)

Quote from: JayBird on September 07, 2013, 11:06:21 AM
Sometimes, I really miss Slick Willy

(http://i.imgur.com/FdYCl6n.jpg)

Lmao that literally made me laugh out loud, good find

IILY, I noticed you chose republicans. I would like to point out that just because I choose to side with republican thought most of the time, it does not mean one cannot agree with the democratic way at others. After all, we are all after a better country for us and our children.

Quote from: JayBird on September 07, 2013, 12:07:23 PM
IILY, I noticed you chose republicans. I would like to point out that just because I choose to side with republican thought most of the time, it does not mean one cannot agree with the democratic way at others. After all, we are all after a better country for us and our children.

I do chose to make fun of Republicans most of the Time here on Metro Jacksonville this is for sure. You can look at the "Political Cartoons" I post a lot of times they bash Republicans and others. But lately I have posted some P.C. of My President Obama looking foolish?  :)

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 07, 2013, 12:01:02 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 07, 2013, 11:57:55 AM

Quote from: JayBird on September 07, 2013, 11:06:21 AM
Sometimes, I really miss Slick Willy

(http://i.imgur.com/FdYCl6n.jpg)

Lmao that literally made me laugh out loud, good find

-1000

Oh be nice, I'm a democrat and loved Clinton...but funny is funny!

Over the last couple of weeks I have heard the not so great Rush Limbaugh and others quote from a media source called the "MINT PRESS NEWS?" If you put your faith into this so called news agency then you also believe in the Easter Bunny? Here is what Wikipedia has said about Mint Press News:

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


Mint Press News is a joke at best or a terrorist ? at worst!

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!!! >:(

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 (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.

Quote from: JeffreyS on September 09, 2013, 12:52:13 PM
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 (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. 

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 09, 2013, 11:04:39 AM
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? 

Quote from: Ajax on September 09, 2013, 12:57:52 PM
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.

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/

QuoteSaudi 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

Quote from: JeffreyS on September 09, 2013, 12:52:13 PM
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 (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! 

It still gives Obama a way out.

Quote from: Ajax on September 09, 2013, 01:08:29 PM

Quote from: JeffreyS on September 09, 2013, 12:52:13 PM
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 (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?

Quote from: JeffreyS on September 09, 2013, 01:02:22 PM

Quote from: Ajax on September 09, 2013, 12:57:52 PM
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   (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  (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  (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/ (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/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 (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. 

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 31, 2013, 08:48:54 PM
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)

QuoteEXCLUSIVE: 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

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)

Quote
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

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 09, 2013, 01:16:12 PM
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.

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

(http://i.imgur.com/DzIwEzO.jpg)

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

Quote

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.

Quote from: Ajax on September 09, 2013, 01:44:38 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 09, 2013, 01:16:12 PM
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! :)

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 09, 2013, 01:47:59 PM
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. 

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 09, 2013, 01:47:59 PM
Obama's approach to the Syrian issue.  Perhaps the world underestimated his ability to play political chess.

(http://i.imgur.com/DzIwEzO.jpg)

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

Quote

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

;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Quote from: Ajax on September 09, 2013, 01:53:46 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 09, 2013, 01:47:59 PM
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. 

Of course it is Ajax.  :)  That's all leadership at this level is. The bottom line to all the political positioning is what is important and if the outcome is one that stops the U.S. from entering a civil war in Syria, why that is some good political doctoring.  ;)

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 09, 2013, 01:54:18 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 09, 2013, 01:47:59 PM
Obama's approach to the Syrian issue.  Perhaps the world underestimated his ability to play political chess.

(http://i.imgur.com/DzIwEzO.jpg)

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

Quote

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

;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

I agree.  I am smiling a big cheesy smile.  lol

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 09, 2013, 01:50:58 PM
" I acknowledge your point." Thank You! :)

You're welcome.  :)  I would be interested to read your responses to my Reply #213 when you have a moment:

QuoteThe 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?

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 09, 2013, 01:57:20 PM

Quote from: Ajax on September 09, 2013, 01:53:46 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 09, 2013, 01:47:59 PM
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. 

Of course it is Ajax.  :)  That's all leadership at this level is.

"Leading from behind."  :)

(http://media1.policymic.com/site/articles/62467/2_photo.jpg)

Quote from: Ajax on September 09, 2013, 01:58:56 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 09, 2013, 01:57:20 PM

Quote from: Ajax on September 09, 2013, 01:53:46 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 09, 2013, 01:47:59 PM
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. 

Of course it is Ajax.  :)  That's all leadership at this level is.

"Leading from behind."  :)

That's what good herders do.  Lead the flock where you would have them go and take care not to lead them off a cliff.  lol

Quote from: Ajax on September 09, 2013, 12:57:52 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 09, 2013, 11:04:39 AM
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?

Look no one wants Innocence people to die. But the Drones that have killed a lot of Al Quadia leaders has been good for the world. So while I'm holding no one accountable. I am sorry that Innocence people have been killed.

Quote from: Ajax on September 09, 2013, 01:33:41 PM

Quote from: JeffreyS on September 09, 2013, 01:02:22 PM

Quote from: Ajax on September 09, 2013, 12:57:52 PM
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   (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  (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  (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/ (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/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 (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. 

OK I would say you have more than justified the original post.  More importantly wow war and intentional policing sucks.  We should stay out of those businesses as much as we can.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 09, 2013, 01:54:18 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 09, 2013, 01:47:59 PM
Obama's approach to the Syrian issue.  Perhaps the world underestimated his ability to play political chess.

(http://i.imgur.com/DzIwEzO.jpg)

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

Quote

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

;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

There will be much spin if Obama finds a way out.  The same people who said he punted to Congress because he had no stomach for war will now say Obama wanted to strike more than life itself.

I think he tried to avoid getting involved after the first red line incident and decided he couldn't after the second.  The part Obama did Brilliantly/Incompetently (depending on where your current conspiracy theory lies as to his motivation) was give the Debate room to mature and positions time to be validated or exposed by forcing Congress to weigh in.

Looks like people are starting to get "Obama's" choices.  ;)

(http://i.imgur.com/h8zLqOZ.jpg)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/09/obama-was-right-to-go-to-congress-the-fact-that-he-might-lose-proves-it/   (click link for complete article)

Quote

The White House's decision to ask Congress for permission to strike Syria is being covered as a political story. If Congress backs the resolution, then that's a "win" for Obama. If they rebuff the administration, that's a loss — and it makes Obama look like a lame duck.

All that's probably true in terms of political narrative. But who wins three days of Washington's inane political narrative sweepstakes is an appalling way to judge matters of war and peace. Losing the vote would prove that Obama was right to hold it in the first place. For reasons both democratic and pragmatic, it's unwise for the president to launch wars of choice that the public overwhelmingly opposes.

But we'll get to that in a second. First, let's look closely at what will happen to the rest of Obama's agenda if he loses the Syria vote. Will House Republicans spy weakness and stop working with Obama on immigration, gun control and health reform?

Oh, wait.

Will they threaten to breach the debt ceiling unless the White House offers implausible policy concessions?

Err...

Will liberal Democrats begin to mobilize against Obama's preferred choice for Federal Reserve Chairman?

Well, you see, the funny thing about that is...

There's no peaceful, productive relationship with Congress for this vote to disrupt. The White House can't get anything past House Republicans now. Neither a "yes" nor a "no" vote on Syria won't change that. The downstream consequences of a congressional rebuff are, effectively, zero. It's a few bad news cycles, and then all Washington will be talking about is the October debt limit.

What would change Obama's presidency is a disastrous intervention in Syria. Imagine a series of American strikes, followed by either another gas attack by Assad, or some kind of terrorist reprisal by Hezbollah, or both. All of a sudden the administration either needs to become a full participant in the Syrian civil war or retreat and take the blame for all that happens in their wake

Well thank god he is doing... whatever it is he is doing...  ???

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 09, 2013, 03:55:26 PM
Well thank god he is doing... whatever it is he is doing...  ???

lmao, exactly!

Wouldn't it be so much better if Assad could drop "I didn't gas my own people" and let the world know the Real Truth? And not take some word of a Mint Press so called News agency?

CNN released this poll today which clearly shows that the majority of Americans "DO NOT" want congress to approve any strikes in Syria.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-poll-main/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3  (click link for full article and poll)

QuotePresident Barack Obama presses his case for a strike on Syria, a new national survey shows him swimming against a strong tide of public opinion that doesn't want the United States to get involved.

The CNN/ORC International poll released on Monday shows that even though eight in 10 Americans believe that Bashar al-Assad's regime gassed its own people, a strong majority doesn't want Congress to pass a resolution authorizing a military strike against it.

More than seven in 10 say such a strike would not achieve significant goals for the United States and a similar amount say it's not in the national interest for the country to get involved in Syria's civil war.

See complete poll results (PDF)

The poll comes at the start of a pivotal week for the president.

The Senate is expected to take up the resolution after returning from its summer recess on Monday while Obama participates in a round of interviews with the major television outlets. Wolf Blitzer's interview with Obama will air Monday on "The Situation Room" at 6 p.m. ET.
Obama's Syria struggle
Congress gets to work on Syria
Why China is staying out of Syria crisis
Obama's challenge from left on Syria

Three questions for Obama

Amid a flurry of briefings by White House officials, Obama will travel to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to make his case with lawmakers hours before he speaks to the nation in a prime-time address.

"Even as he works members of Congress one by one in small group settings, President Obama's biggest challenge is the American public at large," said John King, CNN chief national correspondent.

"More than seven in 10 Americans simply don't see a military response making any difference. They don't see it doing any good. They're very skeptical, post Iraq and even post Libya and post Egypt, that the United States can do something in a limited way in the Middle East and walk away with a success. And so the skepticism is driving it right now."

The stakes are high for the president.

After pushing for strikes against Syria, Obama unexpectedly announced on August 31 that he would ask Congress to authorize military action. Failing to get Congress to go along would be an embarrassment for the commander in chief.

"He'll go to establishing a new high bar to what it means to being a lame duck this early," CNN contributor and Republican strategist Ana Navarro said. "It would be devastating, I think, for rest of his agenda."

But Stephanie Cutter, another CNN contributor who was Obama's 2012 deputy campaign manager, said Congress's not passing the resolution would be "a blow to the United States, not a blow to the president. It's a blow to the United States' authority all over the world. And unprecedented."

"That's why you're going to see some members of Congress vote for that particular reason. Some said they're voting for that particular reason," she said.

Obama faces steep climb in House

The Senate could vote on the resolution as early as Wednesday and the outcome there is very much in doubt. Even more uncertain are prospects in the House where Republican leaders say they'll wait to see what happens in the Senate first.

"Congressional approval would help Obama a little, but a majority would still oppose airstrikes against military targets in Syria," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "If Congress authorizes military action, 55% of Americans would still oppose airstrikes."

The president has had at least a small majority of public support behind him in conflicts involving the United States over the past 20 years.

Eighty-six percent of those surveyed in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll less than a month after the 9/11 terror attacks favored military action, and 56% backed the United States and its allies in creating a "no-fly" zone over Libya in 2011.
On Syria, Obama could face impeachment
Pope Francis against strike in Syria
Should Obama act in Syria without public support?
Doubts remain over who's behind attack

Only U.S. involvement in NATO airstrikes on Serbia in 1999 during the Clinton administration split the public down the middle, with 43% supporting involvement and 40% opposing it.

'This is not Iraq or Afghanistan'

While 64% supported using American ground troops in Iraq in 2003, intelligence indicating Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction was later discredited. That has contributed to public doubts about Obama administration claims of evidence showing that al-Assad's regime gassed its own people on August 21 outside Damascus, killing more than 1,400 people.

Fifty-nine percent of people questioned say they don't think Congress should approve a proposed resolution authorizing military action against Syria for up to 90 days -- an initial 60-day window plus another 30 following congressional notification -- but prohibiting the use of ground troops. About 40% support that plan.

If Congress rejects the Syria resolution, the White House has said that the president still has the authority to strike.

"I think it would be a mistake for me to jump the gun and speculate because right now I'm working to get as much support as possible out of Congress," Obama said on Friday when asked by CNN senior White House correspondent Brianna Keilar what he would do if the resolution failed.

But the poll indicates Americans are quite clear on that point: More than seven in 10 say they would oppose U.S. airstrikes against Syria if Congress does not authorize it.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 09, 2013, 05:15:53 PM
CNN released this poll today which clearly shows that the majority of Americans "DO NOT" want congress to approve any strikes in Syria.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-poll-main/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3  (click link for full article and poll)

QuotePresident Barack Obama presses his case for a strike on Syria, a new national survey shows him swimming against a strong tide of public opinion that doesn't want the United States to get involved.

The CNN/ORC International poll released on Monday shows that even though eight in 10 Americans believe that Bashar al-Assad's regime gassed its own people, a strong majority doesn't want Congress to pass a resolution authorizing a military strike against it.

More than seven in 10 say such a strike would not achieve significant goals for the United States and a similar amount say it's not in the national interest for the country to get involved in Syria's civil war.

See complete poll results (PDF)

The poll comes at the start of a pivotal week for the president.

The Senate is expected to take up the resolution after returning from its summer recess on Monday while Obama participates in a round of interviews with the major television outlets. Wolf Blitzer's interview with Obama will air Monday on "The Situation Room" at 6 p.m. ET.
Obama's Syria struggle
Congress gets to work on Syria
Why China is staying out of Syria crisis
Obama's challenge from left on Syria

Three questions for Obama

Amid a flurry of briefings by White House officials, Obama will travel to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to make his case with lawmakers hours before he speaks to the nation in a prime-time address.

"Even as he works members of Congress one by one in small group settings, President Obama's biggest challenge is the American public at large," said John King, CNN chief national correspondent.

"More than seven in 10 Americans simply don't see a military response making any difference. They don't see it doing any good. They're very skeptical, post Iraq and even post Libya and post Egypt, that the United States can do something in a limited way in the Middle East and walk away with a success. And so the skepticism is driving it right now."

The stakes are high for the president.

After pushing for strikes against Syria, Obama unexpectedly announced on August 31 that he would ask Congress to authorize military action. Failing to get Congress to go along would be an embarrassment for the commander in chief.

"He'll go to establishing a new high bar to what it means to being a lame duck this early," CNN contributor and Republican strategist Ana Navarro said. "It would be devastating, I think, for rest of his agenda."

But Stephanie Cutter, another CNN contributor who was Obama's 2012 deputy campaign manager, said Congress's not passing the resolution would be "a blow to the United States, not a blow to the president. It's a blow to the United States' authority all over the world. And unprecedented."

"That's why you're going to see some members of Congress vote for that particular reason. Some said they're voting for that particular reason," she said.

Obama faces steep climb in House

The Senate could vote on the resolution as early as Wednesday and the outcome there is very much in doubt. Even more uncertain are prospects in the House where Republican leaders say they'll wait to see what happens in the Senate first.

"Congressional approval would help Obama a little, but a majority would still oppose airstrikes against military targets in Syria," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "If Congress authorizes military action, 55% of Americans would still oppose airstrikes."

The president has had at least a small majority of public support behind him in conflicts involving the United States over the past 20 years.

Eighty-six percent of those surveyed in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll less than a month after the 9/11 terror attacks favored military action, and 56% backed the United States and its allies in creating a "no-fly" zone over Libya in 2011.
On Syria, Obama could face impeachment
Pope Francis against strike in Syria
Should Obama act in Syria without public support?
Doubts remain over who's behind attack

Only U.S. involvement in NATO airstrikes on Serbia in 1999 during the Clinton administration split the public down the middle, with 43% supporting involvement and 40% opposing it.

'This is not Iraq or Afghanistan'

While 64% supported using American ground troops in Iraq in 2003, intelligence indicating Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction was later discredited. That has contributed to public doubts about Obama administration claims of evidence showing that al-Assad's regime gassed its own people on August 21 outside Damascus, killing more than 1,400 people.

Fifty-nine percent of people questioned say they don't think Congress should approve a proposed resolution authorizing military action against Syria for up to 90 days -- an initial 60-day window plus another 30 following congressional notification -- but prohibiting the use of ground troops. About 40% support that plan.

If Congress rejects the Syria resolution, the White House has said that the president still has the authority to strike.

"I think it would be a mistake for me to jump the gun and speculate because right now I'm working to get as much support as possible out of Congress," Obama said on Friday when asked by CNN senior White House correspondent Brianna Keilar what he would do if the resolution failed.

But the poll indicates Americans are quite clear on that point: More than seven in 10 say they would oppose U.S. airstrikes against Syria if Congress does not authorize it.

Funny Diane if the poll was just between You and Me it would be a tie? ;)

Another view from a Washington Post/ABC poll.  Six out of ten Americans do not want congress to approve strikes on Syria.  An interesting side note, on Wednesday, Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) tweeted that his office had received 753 calls opposing military intervention in Syria and just 10 in favor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-may-want-americans-to-support-strikes-on-syria-but-can-he-do-anything-about-it/2013/09/08/b30b216e-1896-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html 

Quote

And that is definitely not the case for Obama at the moment. A Washington Post-ABC News poll last week showed that nearly six in 10 Americans — including a majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents — oppose U.S.-led military strikes against Syria, even after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons against his own people. Anecdotal evidence suggests similar opposition among the general public. On Wednesday, Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) tweeted that his office had received 753 calls opposing military intervention in Syria and just 10 in favor.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 09, 2013, 05:40:14 PM
Another view from a Washington Post/ABC poll.  Six out of ten Americans do not want congress to approve strikes on Syria.  An interesting side note, on Wednesday, Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) tweeted that his office had received 753 calls opposing military intervention in Syria and just 10 in favor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-may-want-americans-to-support-strikes-on-syria-but-can-he-do-anything-about-it/2013/09/08/b30b216e-1896-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html 

Quote

And that is definitely not the case for Obama at the moment. A Washington Post-ABC News poll last week showed that nearly six in 10 Americans — including a majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents — oppose U.S.-led military strikes against Syria, even after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons against his own people. Anecdotal evidence suggests similar opposition among the general public. On Wednesday, Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) tweeted that his office had received 753 calls opposing military intervention in Syria and just 10 in favor.

Hey I called the White House and told Obama whatever he needed to do he had my blessing.  :)

Meanwhile German reporting says Assad did not order the use of chemical weapons.  From the Guardian News.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild

Quote

Assad did not order Syria chemical weapons attack, says German press
President Bashar al-Assad did not personally order last month's chemical weapons attack near Damascus that has triggered calls for US military intervention, and blocked numerous requests from his military commanders to use chemical weapons against regime opponents in recent months, a German newspaper has reported , citing unidentified, high-level national security sources.

The intelligence findings were based on phone calls intercepted by a German surveillance ship operated by the BND, the German intelligence service, and deployed off the Syrian coast, Bild am Sonntag said. The intercepted communications suggested Assad, who is accused of war crimes by the west, including foreign secretary William Hague, was not himself involved in last month's attack or in other instances when government forces have allegedly used chemical weapons

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 09, 2013, 02:11:13 PM

Quote from: Ajax on September 09, 2013, 12:57:52 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 09, 2013, 11:04:39 AM
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?

Look no one wants Innocence people to die. But the Drones that have killed a lot of Al Quadia leaders has been good for the world. So while I'm holding no one accountable. I am sorry that Innocence people have been killed.

If Congress votes against military intervention, you're holding them accountable for people dying in a civil war in Syria.  But you're holding "no one" accountable for US drones killing kids in Pakistan?  Ok, I see... ???

There should be a pretty long list of people who are accountable.  G.W. Bush, Obama, Congress...you and me - for not telling our representatives to stop bombing people in our names.  We could add a lot more, but I can't agree with "no one" being accountable. 

Is it fair to say you're ok with children dying over there as long as it's by US hands and not some evil dictator's hand? Because that's what it sounds like. 

Quote from: JeffreyS on September 09, 2013, 02:36:24 PM

Quote from: Ajax on September 09, 2013, 01:33:41 PM

Quote from: JeffreyS on September 09, 2013, 01:02:22 PM

Quote from: Ajax on September 09, 2013, 12:57:52 PM
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   (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  (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  (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/ (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/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 (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. 

OK I would say you have more than justified the original post.  More importantly wow war and intentional policing sucks.  We should stay out of those businesses as much as we can.

I agree. 

Congressman Ander Crenshaw has announced that he is against any U.S. action in Syria.  Nothing yet from Corrine Brown.

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/403455/matt-dixon/2013-09-09/ander-crenshaw-against-syria-strikes

Quote

When asked last week, Crenshaw's office said he was continuing "to review information at all levels."

Here's his statement sent Monday evening:

    Congressman Ander Crenshaw, a member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, today (9/9) announced that he will vote against authorizing the use of United States military force in Syria.

    He issued the following statement:

    "I have carefully reviewed data from our government's highest levels, analyzed facts from our top military leaders, and listened to my constituents, who overwhelmingly oppose action in Syria.  I have decided that military intervention is not in the best interest of America and will vote against authorizing the use of military force in Syria."

Hopefully he turns all the chemical weapons (which he said he doesn't have) over to the UN.  Then he can get back to shooting and blowing up his opponents, which is cool with us and the international community (whatever that may be).

Quite frankly I agree stay out of it as long as it stays in Syria. 

Quote from: Ajax on September 09, 2013, 05:47:42 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 09, 2013, 02:11:13 PM

Quote from: Ajax on September 09, 2013, 12:57:52 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 09, 2013, 11:04:39 AM
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?

Look no one wants Innocence people to die. But the Drones that have killed a lot of Al Quadia leaders has been good for the world. So while I'm holding no one accountable. I am sorry that Innocence people have been killed.

If Congress votes against military intervention, you're holding them accountable for people dying in a civil war in Syria.  But you're holding "no one" accountable for US drones killing kids in Pakistan?  Ok, I see... ???

There should be a pretty long list of people who are accountable.  G.W. Bush, Obama, Congress...you and me - for not telling our representatives to stop bombing people in our names.  We could add a lot more, but I can't agree with "no one" being accountable. 

Is it fair to say you're ok with children dying over there as long as it's by US hands and not some evil dictator's hand? Because that's what it sounds like.

Ajax would you prefer the people we go after with Drones to carry out their evil against American's and anyone they want? I said  "Look no one wants Innocence people to die. But the Drones that have killed a lot of Al Quadia leaders has been good for the world. So while I'm holding no one accountable. I am sorry that Innocence people have been killed." When it came to my statement of holding House & Senate Members accountable for the deaths in Syria I was pissed! I should have said "If President Obama doesn't strike Syria because the House & Senate members vote it down. Anymore Chemical Weapon's used Bombing or shooting deaths by the Syria Army I will blame those House & Senate members for these deaths!!!" Because I feel like President Obama was right to bomb Assad using Chemical Weapons!

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 09, 2013, 08:26:19 PM
Congressman Ander Crenshaw has announced that he is against any U.S. action in Syria.  Nothing yet from Corrine Brown.

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/403455/matt-dixon/2013-09-09/ander-crenshaw-against-syria-strikes

Quote

When asked last week, Crenshaw's office said he was continuing "to review information at all levels."

Here's his statement sent Monday evening:

    Congressman Ander Crenshaw, a member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, today (9/9) announced that he will vote against authorizing the use of United States military force in Syria.

    He issued the following statement:

    "I have carefully reviewed data from our government's highest levels, analyzed facts from our top military leaders, and listened to my constituents, who overwhelmingly oppose action in Syria.  I have decided that military intervention is not in the best interest of America and will vote against authorizing the use of military force in Syria."

No real surprise here. But don't forget people Mr. Crenshaw is still Pro Military so it's not like he has changed his mind and is antiwar minded overall.

Interesting perpective... read the last sentence if nothing else...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/syrian-christians-fear-us-attack-and-islamist-opposition-a-921162.html

QuoteLooming US Attack: Syria's Christians Caught in the Crossfire

By Raniah Salloum in Harissa

They fled from the bitter conflict because they fear the rebels yet can expect no assistance from Assad. Now many of Syria's Christians are stranded in Lebanon, and are answering the call of the Pope by praying for their country -- and that the US military intervention does not come.

They have followed the Pope's call to pray for Syria. But some do not seem entirely convinced. "Look, there aren't even any special security precautions, I don't believe it!" says the young Lebanese woman, as she climbs the stairs to the cathedral in Harissa. The hilltop village lies about 30 kilometers north of Beirut and hosts a famous pilgrimage site, Our Lady of Lebanon. It is considered one of the country's landmarks. The 13-ton white statute is visible from miles around.

Security personnel checking pockets and bags are indeed conspicuous in their absence, these days in Lebanon, where people live in the shadow of the big neighbor Syria. Bombings are also becoming more frequent in Lebanon. So far, the attacks have been targeted at Sunnis and Shiites, but Christians are particularly nervous. They're concerned at the increasingly Islamist tone of the rebels in Syria. They think their way of life will be in danger sooner or later.

In the parking lot in front of the cathedral are four friends, Tony, Jenny, George and Mark. They do not want to give their surnames. They are a bit uneasy talking to Western journalists. The three men are wearing neatly ironed shirts, Jenny a short summer dress. They have come with their families to answer the Pope's call. "We want to pray for Syria. Apart from that, we cannot do anything," says George.

The four are Syrian Christians and know each other from Aleppo, where they were neighbors. Some 14 months ago, when the Syrian civil war reached their town, they each packed a large suitcase and took the next flight to Beirut. Two or three months later, the next big wave of their former neighbors arrived from Aleppo, Jenny says. All of them Christians. "Anyone who could, left," she says.

A Threat to Their Good Old Life

Most Christians, in Lebanon as in Syria, oppose the Syrian rebels. Tony, Jenny, George and Mark resolutely support President Bashar Assad. Before the uprising the four friends were part of Aleppo's upper class. For them, the rebels are barbarians threatening the way they live. It is a perspective that they share with upper class Sunnis.

Many Christians find themselves once again caught in the middle. In Lebanon, not all of them are completely supportive of the Syrian regime. Too many of them had bad experiences with the Assad clan during the Syrian occupation of Lebanon from 1976 to 2005. But the rebels are not an alternative for them. They look upon the potential US military intervention with mixed feelings. Tony, George, Mark and Jenny completely oppose it.

"The world must prevent America from bombarding the Syrian army," says George. "These are our soldiers. They fight for us against the terrorists."

Jenny has found a job in Lebanon as head of a school for Syrian refugees. George, Mark and Tony live on their savings. All three were pharmaceutical drug manufacturers. Before the war, Aleppo was known for its pharma industry. "Our house is still untouched," says George, "but my warehouses were looted." "We have all lost our businesses," says Tony.

"When was Lebanon Ever Stable?"

The four Syrians do not feel completely at home in Lebanon. None of them have Lebanese friends; they hang out with each other. Many Lebanese people resent the millions of Syrians who have come to the small country to flee the war, says George.

Tony fears more violence. "When was Lebanon ever stable?" he asks. "We just want a place where our children can grow up in safety," says Jenny.

If the four could, they would gladly move to the West with their families. But they do not have the necessary visas. The immigration policies of some European countries, among them Germany, give preference to Christians over other Syrians when it comes to asylum, but they are skeptical.

"This is an attempt by the Europeans to drive a wedge between us and our government," says Jenny. "They want to turn us Christians against Bashar Assad, but we will not. Bashar protects us."

Speaking the Language of Jesus

"We have heard what happened at Maalula," says George. He firmly believes the terrible stories that are being told about the ancient Christian city. A few days ago, rebels briefly advanced into the center of Maalula. The city, along with some adjacent Sunni villages, is one of the few places where Aramaic, the language of Jesus, is still spoken.

Maalula provides an example of how Christians are being exploited in the Syrian civil war. Shortly after the rebels marched in, the Syrian state broadcaster reported that they desecrated the churches and destroyed shrines.

But then a senior nun at the Thekla Convent in Maalula contradicted the reports and said the rebels had not damaged the shrines. A Christian resident told the Reuters news agency: "We must remain fair. They do not seem to have looted churches or houses." In video footage showing the city and rebels after the occupation, no damage to the churches can be seen.

For several days now, the Syrian army has been deployed in Maalula with tanks and artillery. Damascus will pin the blame for the resulting damage on the rebels and they in turn will blame the regime.

Both sides in the Syrian civil war know how important the Christians' situation is in influencing the mood in the West. Therefore, the regime regularly devises horror scenarios of desecrated churches and massacred Christians -- while the Syrian opposition draws up lists of the churches damaged by shelling from Assad's military and accuses the regime of kidnapping bishops. Amid the turmoil of war and the polarized atmosphere, who is responsible for what is a question of political faith.

Good find BT.

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 05, 2013, 09:25:04 PM

Quote from: Ajax on September 05, 2013, 05:41:28 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 04, 2013, 06:08:25 PM
1. Did you ever ask yourself why Assad would use chemical weapons? Yes he knows the Civil War isn't going away anytime soon. He used the Chemical Weapons feeling he has Big Brother Iran and Russia on his side that the Americans are not going to bomb his country? 2. Can you imagine a scenario where al Quaeda militants. I hope you don't believe these none humans over President Obama? 3. UN wasn't able to definitively say who launched the chemical attack. The UN has it's own agenda they want everybody to hold hands and sing? We are the World?

1.  That doesn't make sense to me.  But I guess if Assad is a madman it wouldn't have to make sense to anyone. 
2.  I don't know who to believe.  I believe that Obama and Kerry and the rest of the US government have demonstrated a willingness to lie to push an agenda.  I know that Putin is a liar.  And I don't doubt that Assad and the al Qaeda militants are liars.  So I don't know who to believe in this scenario.
3.  Yes, the UN has its own agenda.  So does the US - it's usually about money.  Even the Pope said that military strikes would be futile and there are other ways to handle this.  But he's got his own agenda too.

Have you followed the Assad Family over the years? His father was a butcher and they run their country like a dictatorship. A lot like Russia and Putin? I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall and listen to Putin and Obama today behind closed doors? But your right the U.S. has their own agenda. And I like this Pope but I'm not Catholic I'm a Methodist. So I don't follow the same teaching as the Catholics are taught. 

assad a butcher and so is his son?, no your wrong, our greatest secretary of state and future president said hes a reformer.  Dear aunt Pelosi and uncle biden loved to visit him. and have there picture taken.  But then again "what does it matter now"

(http://i.imgur.com/qMg2WAr.jpg)

First Lady Michelle Obama opposes military action in Syria, President Barack Obama told PBS and NBC News on Monday.

"My own family members... they're very wary and suspicious," President Obama told PBS.

Obama said the First Lady does not want the country to engage in another war:

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 10, 2013, 12:35:26 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/qMg2WAr.jpg)

First Lady Michelle Obama opposes military action in Syria, President Barack Obama told PBS and NBC News on Monday.

"My own family members... they're very wary and suspicious," President Obama told PBS.

Obama said the First Lady does not want the country to engage in another war:

In that case, I would like to ask Mrs. Obama to read Lysistrata! Lol

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 10, 2013, 12:35:26 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/qMg2WAr.jpg)

First Lady Michelle Obama opposes military action in Syria, President Barack Obama told PBS and NBC News on Monday.

"My own family members... they're very wary and suspicious," President Obama told PBS.

Obama said the First Lady does not want the country to engage in another war:

He is losing credibility with his own family?

Quote from: Ajax on September 10, 2013, 12:49:12 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 10, 2013, 12:35:26 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/qMg2WAr.jpg)

First Lady Michelle Obama opposes military action in Syria, President Barack Obama told PBS and NBC News on Monday.

"My own family members... they're very wary and suspicious," President Obama told PBS.

Obama said the First Lady does not want the country to engage in another war:

In that case, I would like to ask Mrs. Obama to read Lysistrata! Lol

Ummmmm, I am thinking she already has.  lmao

(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/01/president-barack-obama-2013-inauguration-537x442.jpg)

I supported what President Obama wanted to do.  ;)

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 10, 2013, 01:36:01 PM
(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/01/president-barack-obama-2013-inauguration-537x442.jpg)

I supported what President Obama wanted to do.  ;)

Fortunately 59% of the population disagrees with you and the President.

;D

QuoteJohn Kerry Costs U.S. Defense Industry $400 Billion
NEWS IN BRIEF • Syria • Politics • Politicians • ISSUE 49•37 • Sep 10, 2013

WASHINGTON—Responding to initial reports that Syria may relinquish its stockpile of chemical weapons following Secretary of State John Kerry's assertion that doing so would decrease the likelihood of American military strikes, representatives for the domestic defense industry complained to reporters Tuesday that the top-ranking diplomat may have cost them $400 billion in revenue. "We were ready to produce and sell tomahawk missiles, advanced combat systems, and more unmanned predator drones, but instead our Secretary of State had to run his big fat mouth about options for averting war, and now we're out hundreds of billions of dollars," said a visibly upset Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn A. Hewson, who along with her fellow executives at Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and General Dynamics complained that because the initial invasion would have more than likely led to a protracted, wide-ranging international conflict, Kerry might have even cost them trillions. "With thousands of new munitions and logistical support contracts, Syria would have been a goldmine for us. I swear to God, if this doesn't work out John Kerry owes us half a trillion dollars." Hewson added that it was some consolation that, with Kerry as the country's chief foreign affairs liaison, he would "probably say something idiotic" in the near future that would lead to another lucrative international conflict.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/john-kerry-costs-us-defense-industry-400-billion,33815/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Default:1:Default (http://www.theonion.com/articles/john-kerry-costs-us-defense-industry-400-billion,33815/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Default:1:Default)

Stephen the 59% figure carpnter quoted is a figure from a CNN poll specifically about the strikes. 59% of those polled were against the strikes in Syria.  You can find the poll further up in the thread.  ;)

Now for all of the "Obama" want's to strike Syria supporters, this "lighthearted" look at funding WWIII.
I voted for Obama and still support him in most things, but in this case....nope!  I am personally hoping he is working some secret convoluted agenda that is about political standing and not about dropping missiles. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ&feature=share

Quote from: Ajax on September 10, 2013, 03:14:21 PM
;D

QuoteJohn Kerry Costs U.S. Defense Industry $400 Billion
NEWS IN BRIEF • Syria • Politics • Politicians • ISSUE 49•37 • Sep 10, 2013

WASHINGTON—Responding to initial reports that Syria may relinquish its stockpile of chemical weapons following Secretary of State John Kerry's assertion that doing so would decrease the likelihood of American military strikes, representatives for the domestic defense industry complained to reporters Tuesday that the top-ranking diplomat may have cost them $400 billion in revenue. "We were ready to produce and sell tomahawk missiles, advanced combat systems, and more unmanned predator drones, but instead our Secretary of State had to run his big fat mouth about options for averting war, and now we're out hundreds of billions of dollars," said a visibly upset Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn A. Hewson, who along with her fellow executives at Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and General Dynamics complained that because the initial invasion would have more than likely led to a protracted, wide-ranging international conflict, Kerry might have even cost them trillions. "With thousands of new munitions and logistical support contracts, Syria would have been a goldmine for us. I swear to God, if this doesn't work out John Kerry owes us half a trillion dollars." Hewson added that it was some consolation that, with Kerry as the country's chief foreign affairs liaison, he would "probably say something idiotic" in the near future that would lead to another lucrative international conflict.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/john-kerry-costs-us-defense-industry-400-billion,33815/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Default:1:Default (http://www.theonion.com/articles/john-kerry-costs-us-defense-industry-400-billion,33815/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Default:1:Default)

The Onion is so good.

Quote from: carpnter on September 10, 2013, 02:52:14 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 10, 2013, 01:36:01 PM
(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/01/president-barack-obama-2013-inauguration-537x442.jpg)

I supported what President Obama wanted to do.  ;)

Fortunately 59% of the population disagrees with you and the President.

Fine with me.  :)

Tuesday, September 10, 2013
     

Watch President Obama at 9:00 ET tonight

Tonight at 9:00 PM ET, President Obama will address the nation from the East Room of the White House.

He will discuss our response to the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons that killed more than 1,400 civilians -- including more than 400 children.

Watch the President's speech live on WhiteHouse.gov/Syria.

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 10, 2013, 01:36:01 PM
(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/01/president-barack-obama-2013-inauguration-537x442.jpg)

I supported what President Obama wanted to do.  ;)

give him a call, not sure that he knows

Look why are  we all of a sudden concerned about Syria, as the side boob gazette (puffington host) said there have been 110,000 men women and children killed in this war and no one I mean no ONE blinked twice.  Dear leader didn't, our future president "Hillary" "what does it matter now" didn't . Assad (ask Pelosi she is a close friend) may or may not have used chemical weapons and we get our panties in wad over it?  Would it have made everyone feel better if he had just put a gun to there head and pulled the trigger.

President Obama has spoken about Syria and I support him even more. :) 

Well as I predicted once russia got directly involved we backed down, everybody has too much to lose. Which is good, I'm sick of playing world-cop, and some tinpot dictator's civil war is not our problem.

The whole time we have talked about the goal as degrading their chemical weapons capability. Removing their chemical weapons is not backing down. It is ok to settle some things without bombing brown people.

Even if it was not by perfect design Obama forced Russia and Syria's hand.

Quote from: JeffreyS on September 11, 2013, 07:19:02 AM
The whole time we have talked about the goal as degrading their chemical weapons capability. Removing their chemical weapons is not backing down. It is ok to settle some things without bombing brown people.

Even if it was not by perfect design Obama forced Russia and Syria's hand.

Except that's not what was talked about at all, retaliatory strikes (most or all on facilities that were military command and control centers, and had nothing specifically to do with chemical weapons) and even "boots on the ground" if you listened to half of congress, were what was being discussed. The president continually spoke of the need for retaliatory strikes to 'send a message.'

At no time did any member of the us government say "we just want them to surrender their sarin gas and we'll call it a day,' until Russia said if you go in we'll intervene and started sending guided missile cruisers over there. Now all of a sudden, forget sending a message and all the other war hawk tripe we've heard for weeks, now we're really interested in peace, blah blah blah. Give me a break. And come on, it is what it is.

John Kerry said though not very emphatically.

I think you are confusing stated tactics with stated goals. I am not claiming that there were not goals beyond those stated but the talking point has consistently been around the use of chemical weapons.

(https://sphotos-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1005517_582004641835407_620657758_n.jpg)

Here is a letter that was sent to me and millions of other people. From the White House and I'm sharing it with you MJ.


The White House, Washington



Good evening --

I just addressed the nation about the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war in Syria. Over 100,000 people have been killed.

In that time, we have worked with friends and allies to provide humanitarian support for the Syrian people, to help the moderate opposition within Syria, and to shape a political settlement. But we have resisted calls for military action because we cannot resolve someone else's civil war through force.

The situation profoundly changed in the early hours of August 21, when more than 1,000 Syrians -- including hundreds of children -- were killed by chemical weapons launched by the Assad government.

What happened to those people -- to those children -- is not only a violation of international law -- it's also a danger to our security. Here's why:

If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these deadly weapons erodes, other tyrants and authoritarian regimes will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gases and using them. Over time, our troops could face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. It could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons and use them to attack civilians. If fighting spills beyond Syria's borders, these weapons could threaten our allies in the region.

So after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime's ability to use them, and make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.

Though I possess the authority to order these strikes, in the absence of a direct threat to our security I believe that Congress should consider my decision to act. Our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress -- and when Americans stand together as one people.

Over the last few days, as this debate unfolds, we've already begun to see signs that the credible threat of U.S. military action may produce a diplomatic breakthrough. The Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons and the Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they'd join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use.

It's too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force.

That's why I've asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I'm sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. At the same time, we'll work with two of our closest allies -- France and the United Kingdom -- to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons, and to ultimately destroy them under international control.

Meanwhile, I've ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad, and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails. And tonight, I give thanks again to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices.

As we continue this debate -- in Washington, and across the country -- I need your help to make sure that everyone understands the factors at play.

Please share this message with others to make sure they know where I stand, and how they can stay up to date on this situation. Anyone can find the latest information about the situation in Syria, including video of tonight's address, here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/syria

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Quote from: JeffreyS on September 11, 2013, 07:56:46 AM
John Kerry said though not very emphatically.

I think you are confusing stated tactics with stated goals. I am not claiming that there were not goals beyond those stated but the talking point has consistently been around the use of chemical weapons.

Well yes, but did he say that before or after russia made it clear they'd intervene? Lol, that's kind of the point.

FWIW, Kerry initially ran around talking about red lines and sending in troops, this new spirit of cooperation (to the extent you can call it that) is a relatively recent development. In fact it developed at the exact moment they realized they were risking an actual war with an actual power instead of a tinpot dictator.

Look, I'm just happy we're done playing world police, at least until the next one russia or china don't give a $h!t about comes along. It's a waste of our lifeblood, we've bled trillions upon trillions of dollars we can't afford in the middle of a global recession supporting foreign military interventions we had no business bothering with in the first place. That region is notorious for being a "you break it, you bought it" scenario, since you can't just let Iran take the place over the minute we leave, you get stuck propping up friendly governments indefinitely. It's a blood-sucking quagmire that we're better off having nothing to do with.

While the way this one played out is nationally embarrassing, it's still the correct result regardless of how it happened. There are wars going on all over the place, that doesn't mean we have any business getting involved in it. This isn't WWII where somebody showed up unannounced and bombed our military base, this was someone else's conflict that had nothing to do with us.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 11, 2013, 08:55:31 AM

Quote from: JeffreyS on September 11, 2013, 07:56:46 AM
John Kerry said though not very emphatically.

I think you are confusing stated tactics with stated goals. I am not claiming that there were not goals beyond those stated but the talking point has consistently been around the use of chemical weapons.

Well yes, but did he say that before or after russia made it clear they'd intervene? Lol, that's kind of the point.

FWIW, Kerry initially ran around talking about red lines and sending in troops, this new spirit of cooperation (to the extent you can call it that) is a relatively recent development. In fact it developed at the exact moment they realized they were risking an actual war with an actual power instead of a tinpot dictator.

Look, I'm just happy we're done playing world police, at least until the next one russia or china don't give a $h!t about comes along. It's a waste of our lifeblood, we've bled trillions upon trillions of dollars we can't afford in the middle of a global recession supporting foreign military interventions we had no business bothering with in the first place. That region is notorious for being a "you break it, you bought it" scenario, since you can't just let Iran take the place over the minute we leave, you get stuck propping up friendly governments indefinitely. It's a blood-sucking quagmire that we're better off having nothing to do with.

While the way this one played out is nationally embarrassing, it's still the correct result regardless of how it happened. There are wars going on all over the place, that doesn't mean we have any business getting involved in it. This isn't WWII where somebody showed up unannounced and bombed our military base, this was someone else's conflict that had nothing to do with us.

I for one am glad Obama and Kerry forced Putin, Assad and the UN to work together to make this a gas free conflict. 

Well that's certainly another way of looking at it, and from that perspective I suppose it did work out well.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 11, 2013, 02:08:28 PM
Well that's certainly another way of looking at it, and from that perspective I suppose it did work out well.

lol... It was the best I could come up with...

Um...nothing has actually been "done" yet.

Good point NN. Which is why there are options.  No cowboy diplomacy that leads to the second there is an excuse to bomb the president bombs. He has engaged here at home and abroad. So what do you know a possible solution has emerged. 

I know some think it makes us look weak to not blast the second we can but I say there will still be plenty of brown people we can hit with missiles if we need some neocon version of street cred again.

We still need to be calling our representatives to try and force a best that can be hoped for outcome because as NN said it is not done yet.

Quote from: NotNow on September 11, 2013, 03:31:27 PM
Um...nothing has actually been "done" yet.

Exactly... and nothing is likely to happen.  Putin, Assad, and the UN will "negotiate" endlessly... months later some inspectors will show up somewhere in Syria and not be granted access... they will leave... more negotiation... a few months later they will come back and inspect some long empty chemical weapons site... Obama will not have to attack... Assad will not get attacked... and the Russians will not be embarrassed again by US strikes against their crappy equipment.

It is a win win...

I am going to go out on the naive limb and bet the gas is confiscated and destroyed.

Nothing has happened yet that much is true.  My prediction is that we will see the turn over of Assad's chemical weapons and a gradual step down from there with some sort of hand spanking with regard to the use of chemical weapons via the main players and eventually perhaps through the U.N. 

In the meantime, Obama will keep "talking" about the fact that the U.S. is still in the posture of delivering missile strikes at any moment.  That should be enough of a motivator for Assad to comply.  Behind the scenes and what has not been openly discussed is the workings of some agreements about "pipe lines" that the Russians are pushing for.  Media has latched onto the "supposed" gaff made by Kerry talking about Assad turning over the chemical weapons and the U.S. would stand down.  What most folks who may not watch media as closely as others do, may have missed is the reality that the issue of the turn over of the chemical weapons had already made media print immediately after Obama and Putin met a few days back, "before" Kerry's supposed gaff.  Nothing is what it seems with the issue of Syria and there doesn't seem to be any relief in site for the Syrian people as it appears those fighting on the rebel side also come with a serious amount of baggage that directly impacts human rights and freedom.  This is a war that they must finish and the future of their country is in their hands, not ours nor should it be. 

As far as this appearing that Obama was led by Putin, that's just spin without any real knowledge or understanding of the often testy agreements brokered between Russia and the U.S. over the years.  One of the most "iffy"  took place years ago and it was a situationconsidered mishandled by a sitting president.  That was the Cuban missile crisis. Then President Kennedy was taken to task over that standoff for years.  In retrospect, it was the fact that he went to the table and brokered an agreement with the soviets that the crisis was defused.  That is what people remember and there is little discussion of the bumpy road our government traveled to get to the desired outcome.

Quote from: JeffreyS on September 11, 2013, 04:07:09 PM
I am going to go out on the naive limb and bet the gas is confiscated and destroyed.

Hope your right JS... but we are talking about Putin and Assad

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 11, 2013, 04:17:45 PM

Quote from: JeffreyS on September 11, 2013, 04:07:09 PM
I am going to go out on the naive limb and bet the gas is confiscated and destroyed.

Hope your right JS... but we are talking about Putin and Assad

This is true, but Putin has received some of what he wanted regarding concessions on a pipeline.  He also does not want a war nor to see his buddy Assad taken down by U.S. strikes.  I think we will see the chemical weapons turned over along with the requirement that a U.N. investigative team (or other team selected by the main players) will have to inspect the facilities where the weapons where stored and manufactured.  There is nothing for Putin to gain by letting Assad keep the weapons and the flip side is it will help Putin with his self image in the world.  He gets to look all reasonable and thoughtful while getting what he want's a no cost to himself.

I want to be happy for this news, after all it accomplished the goal that was set out for. However, I am having flashbacks of 1991 Iraq. Maybe it is just over analyzing paranoia.

Quote from: JayBird on September 11, 2013, 06:29:30 PM
I want to be happy for this news, after all it accomplished the goal that was set out for. However, I am having flashbacks of 1991 Iraq. Maybe it is just over analyzing paranoia.

You have every reason to be skeptical considering what history has shown us.  I think most people are at this point and like you, folks simply want the best conclusion to this mess with regard to any actions taken by the U.S.  I hope our country will continue to support the refugees and the sick and injured among them.  That is the most compassionate and helpful thing we can do in such an awful situation. 

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 11, 2013, 03:54:51 PM

Quote from: NotNow on September 11, 2013, 03:31:27 PM
Um...nothing has actually been "done" yet.

Exactly... and nothing is likely to happen.  Putin, Assad, and the UN will "negotiate" endlessly... months later some inspectors will show up somewhere in Syria and not be granted access... they will leave... more negotiation... a few months later they will come back and inspect some long empty chemical weapons site... Obama will not have to attack... Assad will not get attacked... and the Russians will not be embarrassed again by US strikes against their crappy equipment.

It is a win win...

Well in all fairness we have some crappy equipment too, the advantage is we just have more of it.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 11, 2013, 10:37:24 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 11, 2013, 03:54:51 PM

Quote from: NotNow on September 11, 2013, 03:31:27 PM
Um...nothing has actually been "done" yet.

Exactly... and nothing is likely to happen.  Putin, Assad, and the UN will "negotiate" endlessly... months later some inspectors will show up somewhere in Syria and not be granted access... they will leave... more negotiation... a few months later they will come back and inspect some long empty chemical weapons site... Obama will not have to attack... Assad will not get attacked... and the Russians will not be embarrassed again by US strikes against their crappy equipment.

It is a win win...

Well in all fairness we have some crappy equipment too, the advantage is we just have more of it.

Hmmm... I don't think that is an accurate or fair assessment at all... No worries... it does not matter with regards to Syria anymore...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 12, 2013, 06:50:34 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 11, 2013, 10:37:24 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 11, 2013, 03:54:51 PM

Quote from: NotNow on September 11, 2013, 03:31:27 PM
Um...nothing has actually been "done" yet.

Exactly... and nothing is likely to happen.  Putin, Assad, and the UN will "negotiate" endlessly... months later some inspectors will show up somewhere in Syria and not be granted access... they will leave... more negotiation... a few months later they will come back and inspect some long empty chemical weapons site... Obama will not have to attack... Assad will not get attacked... and the Russians will not be embarrassed again by US strikes against their crappy equipment.

It is a win win...

Well in all fairness we have some crappy equipment too, the advantage is we just have more of it.

Hmmm... I don't think that is an accurate or fair assessment at all... No worries... it does not matter with regards to Syria anymore...

Well in regards to Syria...

Our current generation of fighters isn't working out well, at least of you expect it to, you know, work properly, not oxygen-starve the pilots, and not have an entire Air Force wing refuse to fly them, not have computers malfunction every 15 minutes, not have inferior performance, that kind of thing. That leaves the F15/16/18 and the dassaults if the french actually join us, to which the Russians have comparable equipment. Ground equipment that's suited for service over there, we take the cake no doubt, especially all the changes that were incorporated as the result of Iraq and Afghanistan. That and russian tanks have always been crappy, and no doubt still are. We have far better sea-based air power, we have 10 aircraft carriers to Russia's 1, so that one's not even close. Except Syria's in Russia's back yard, they don't need aircraft carriers to get over there, so I'm not sure how you compare those. Russia has been able to easily detect the stealth bombers since the 1990s, those would be an advantage over Assad but not really russia, or even him depending on what they sell him.

The US vs. Russia, even by proxy through Assad, wouldn't be the typical Middle East engagement, it'd be an air war, and/or everybody sits in their guided missile cruisers and subs and pushes buttons. Land invasions into home territory by either combatant would result in a loss for the invader, and with both being nuclear powers that's out of the question entirely anyway. Missile technology, they're comparable and actually some of their stuff is pretty amazing, they have missiles designed to be fired in 8+ member volleys, one rises up above the rest and acts as an independent targeting platform and transmits targeting data to the rest, and all the data is shared, if any missile is destroyed, including the one serving as the control platform, another simply switches modes to take its place. You identify the targets before launch, and they make whatever decisions they have to to destroy them in whatever combination works best amongst what survives to the target. Unless you plan on mounting an absurd number of phalanx modules on every ship, that's a problem.

After the Cold War we pretty much quit designing any groundbreaking missile technology, they cheaped out on everything else but kept going with that. In this type of conflict, it would be a problem. Chinas hardware is a joke, I don't seriously think they'd get involved, they're just hot air, so I won't bother going into them.

Op-Ed from Putin himself in the NYT yesterday:

QuoteA Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria

By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
Published: September 11, 2013 1527 Comments

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations' founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America's consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria's borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today's complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America's long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan "you're either with us or against us."

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government's willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president's interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is "what makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional." It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.


Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 12, 2013, 07:54:14 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 12, 2013, 06:50:34 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 11, 2013, 10:37:24 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 11, 2013, 03:54:51 PM

Quote from: NotNow on September 11, 2013, 03:31:27 PM
Um...nothing has actually been "done" yet.

Exactly... and nothing is likely to happen.  Putin, Assad, and the UN will "negotiate" endlessly... months later some inspectors will show up somewhere in Syria and not be granted access... they will leave... more negotiation... a few months later they will come back and inspect some long empty chemical weapons site... Obama will not have to attack... Assad will not get attacked... and the Russians will not be embarrassed again by US strikes against their crappy equipment.

It is a win win...

Well in all fairness we have some crappy equipment too, the advantage is we just have more of it.

Hmmm... I don't think that is an accurate or fair assessment at all... No worries... it does not matter with regards to Syria anymore...

Well in regards to Syria...

Our current generation of fighters isn't working out well, at least of you expect it to, you know, work properly, not oxygen-starve the pilots, and not have an entire Air Force wing refuse to fly them, not have computers malfunction every 15 minutes, not have inferior performance, that kind of thing. That leaves the F15/16/18 and the dassaults if the french actually join us, to which the Russians have comparable equipment. Ground equipment that's suited for service over there, we take the cake no doubt, especially all the changes that were incorporated as the result of Iraq and Afghanistan. That and russian tanks have always been crappy, and no doubt still are. We have far better sea-based air power, we have 10 aircraft carriers to Russia's 1, so that one's not even close. Except Syria's in Russia's back yard, they don't need aircraft carriers to get over there, so I'm not sure how you compare those. Russia has been able to easily detect the stealth bombers since the 1990s, those would be an advantage over Assad but not really russia, or even him depending on what they sell him.

The US vs. Russia, even by proxy through Assad, wouldn't be the typical Middle East engagement, it'd be an air war, and/or everybody sits in their guided missile cruisers and subs and pushes buttons. Land invasions into home territory by either combatant would result in a loss for the invader, and with both being nuclear powers that's out of the question entirely anyway. Missile technology, they're comparable and actually some of their stuff is pretty amazing, they have missiles designed to be fired in 8+ member volleys, one rises up above the rest and acts as an independent targeting platform and transmits targeting data to the rest, and all the data is shared, if any missile is destroyed, including the one serving as the control platform, another simply switches modes to take its place. You identify the targets before launch, and they make whatever decisions they have to to destroy them in whatever combination works best amongst what survives to the target. Unless you plan on mounting an absurd number of phalanx modules on every ship, that's a problem.

After the Cold War we pretty much quit designing any groundbreaking missile technology, they cheaped out on everything else but kept going with that. In this type of conflict, it would be a problem. Chinas hardware is a joke, I don't seriously think they'd get involved, they're just hot air, so I won't bother going into them.

Look at this way we all win, no attack from us.  Putin and Assad pretend to negotiate.  Dear Leader makes more speeches and we all pretend its settled.  Assad goes back to shooting and blowing people up and we are all good.  The first 99000 were cool with us and the international community the last couple of thousand not so much.  Well maybe not for the Syrians

Upshot is no one cares what happens in Syria, the whole theater we went through was a joke and no one should let dear leader speak without a script gets his butt in a corner and we have to deal with this.  Keep him on the rubber chicken circuit and we will all be better off

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 12, 2013, 07:54:14 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 12, 2013, 06:50:34 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 11, 2013, 10:37:24 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 11, 2013, 03:54:51 PM

Quote from: NotNow on September 11, 2013, 03:31:27 PM
Um...nothing has actually been "done" yet.

Exactly... and nothing is likely to happen.  Putin, Assad, and the UN will "negotiate" endlessly... months later some inspectors will show up somewhere in Syria and not be granted access... they will leave... more negotiation... a few months later they will come back and inspect some long empty chemical weapons site... Obama will not have to attack... Assad will not get attacked... and the Russians will not be embarrassed again by US strikes against their crappy equipment.

It is a win win...

Well in all fairness we have some crappy equipment too, the advantage is we just have more of it.

Hmmm... I don't think that is an accurate or fair assessment at all... No worries... it does not matter with regards to Syria anymore...

Well in regards to Syria...

Our current generation of fighters isn't working out well, at least of you expect it to, you know, work properly, not oxygen-starve the pilots, and not have an entire Air Force wing refuse to fly them, not have computers malfunction every 15 minutes, not have inferior performance, that kind of thing. That leaves the F15/16/18 and the dassaults if the french actually join us, to which the Russians have comparable equipment. Ground equipment that's suited for service over there, we take the cake no doubt, especially all the changes that were incorporated as the result of Iraq and Afghanistan. That and russian tanks have always been crappy, and no doubt still are. We have far better sea-based air power, we have 10 aircraft carriers to Russia's 1, so that one's not even close. Except Syria's in Russia's back yard, they don't need aircraft carriers to get over there, so I'm not sure how you compare those. Russia has been able to easily detect the stealth bombers since the 1990s, those would be an advantage over Assad but not really russia, or even him depending on what they sell him.

The US vs. Russia, even by proxy through Assad, wouldn't be the typical Middle East engagement, it'd be an air war, and/or everybody sits in their guided missile cruisers and subs and pushes buttons. Land invasions into home territory by either combatant would result in a loss for the invader, and with both being nuclear powers that's out of the question entirely anyway. Missile technology, they're comparable and actually some of their stuff is pretty amazing, they have missiles designed to be fired in 8+ member volleys, one rises up above the rest and acts as an independent targeting platform and transmits targeting data to the rest, and all the data is shared, if any missile is destroyed, including the one serving as the control platform, another simply switches modes to take its place. You identify the targets before launch, and they make whatever decisions they have to to destroy them in whatever combination works best amongst what survives to the target. Unless you plan on mounting an absurd number of phalanx modules on every ship, that's a problem.

After the Cold War we pretty much quit designing any groundbreaking missile technology, they cheaped out on everything else but kept going with that. In this type of conflict, it would be a problem. Chinas hardware is a joke, I don't seriously think they'd get involved, they're just hot air, so I won't bother going into them.

The oxygen starvation problem is an f-22 issue not aware of an issue with the F-35, but haven't been tracking that.

Our current stable of aircraft are superior to most of the sovie... er... russian inventory.

Back on topic... Right on schedule... lol...

http://media.cagle.com/91/2013/09/19/137674_600.jpg

QuoteSyria may miss first deadline in U.S.-Russia chemical arms deal

The ambitious agreement is challenged as indications arise that the Syrian government will not submit a toxic-stockpile inventory this weekend.

By Shashank Bengali and Paul Richter
September 18, 2013, 4:56 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The ambitious U.S.-Russian deal to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons, hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough just days ago, hit its first delay Wednesday with indications that the Syrian government will not submit an inventory of its toxic stockpiles and facilities to international inspectors by this weekend's deadline.

The State Department signaled that it would not insist that Syrian President Bashar Assad produce the list Saturday, the end of a seven-day period spelled out in the framework deal that Washington and Moscow announced last weekend in Geneva.

Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman, said Wednesday that "our goal is to see forward momentum" by Saturday, not the full list. "We've never said it was a hard and fast deadline."

It wasn't clear whether Syrian officials needed more time to complete a formal declaration of their chemical arms, or whether the disarmament deal itself was in trouble.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry had described the date as the first of several "specific timelines" that would indicate whether Syria is committed to the deal that he and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had worked out.

"We agreed that Syria must submit within a week — not in 30 days, but in one week — a comprehensive listing," Kerry said Saturday. He said the U.S. would allow "no games, no room for avoidance, or anything less than full compliance."

Senior Obama administration officials had praised Russia for persuading Assad's government to relinquish its lethal chemical arsenal, one of the world's largest, by mid-2014 in a deal to avoid U.S. missile strikes in retaliation for the Aug. 21 poison gas attack that the U.S. says killed more than 1,000 people.

But Moscow's ability or willingness to push its ally in Damascus to meet the first deadline in the deal now is being questioned.

Kerry and Lavrov sought last weekend to portray the two powers as united. The gap between them, however, has become more apparent and is threatening to snarl efforts to craft a United Nations Security Council resolution that lays out how Syria is to meet its obligations.

The resolution needs to be complete before the first steps can be taken to impound and either remove or destroy Syria's arsenal. Diplomats said Western countries split with Russia in a meeting Tuesday over Western demands for tough enforcement of the agreement.

Diplomats hope to complete the resolution by Friday, but if they fall short the work may be delayed further next week because of the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, an international body based in The Hague, is expected to take several days to complete its analysis of the Syrian "initial declaration," and then will submit its report to the United Nations.

Gary Samore, who was President Obama's top arms control advisor until February, said the declaration is key because "it will provide an early test of whether this process is ever going to get off the ground."

Samore, now research chief for the Belfer Center at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, said he believes Russia is pushing Syria to comply. He also said, "Assad is going to try to hide some portion — maybe 10%, maybe 30% — whatever he thinks he can get away with."

Western diplomats close to the deliberations at the U.N. are wary that the Syrians may try to "cheat and retreat," as Saddam Hussein's government did for years in Iraq, to stymie U.N. weapons inspections.

"We're not going to lose a lot of faith in the Syrians, because we're not starting out with a lot," said one diplomat, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Western diplomats said they wanted to avoid a mistake of the U.N.'s battle with Hussein by starting out with an enforcement mechanism strong enough to prevent the Syrians from avoiding their obligations.

The Russians and Americans are sharply split over the use of the U.N.'s Chapter 7, which authorizes punitive actions, in any resolution. Russia has argued that it should be included only as a possible avenue for future action, while the United States, Britain and France want it conveyed automatically if there is noncompliance.

Russia also amplified its claims that rebels seeking to overthrow Assad, not the Syrian government, fired rockets filled with deadly sarin gas Aug. 21, and described a U.N. report on the incident as "politicized" and "one-sided."

U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky defended the report Wednesday, calling it "indisputable" and "thoroughly objective." Independent groups have analyzed data in the report and concluded that the rockets were fired from government-controlled areas into territory held or contested by rebels.

U.S. officials say they have seen no evidence that chemical weapons are stored or being used in areas held by the opposition.

Some experts argued that the one-week timeline was too generous. Robert M. Gates, former Defense secretary under George W. Bush and Obama, said this week that Assad should have been given a 48-hour ultimatum.

"It should be an easier task on the part of the Syrians compared to the Iraqis," said Charles Duelfer, who led the U.S. search for weapons of mass destruction after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 20, 2013, 08:13:18 AM
Our current stable of aircraft are superior to most of the sovie... er... russian inventory.

Back on topic... Right on schedule... lol...

http://media.cagle.com/91/2013/09/19/137674_600.jpg

QuoteSyria may miss first deadline in U.S.-Russia chemical arms deal

The ambitious agreement is challenged as indications arise that the Syrian government will not submit a toxic-stockpile inventory this weekend.

By Shashank Bengali and Paul Richter
September 18, 2013, 4:56 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The ambitious U.S.-Russian deal to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons, hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough just days ago, hit its first delay Wednesday with indications that the Syrian government will not submit an inventory of its toxic stockpiles and facilities to international inspectors by this weekend's deadline.

The State Department signaled that it would not insist that Syrian President Bashar Assad produce the list Saturday, the end of a seven-day period spelled out in the framework deal that Washington and Moscow announced last weekend in Geneva.

Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman, said Wednesday that "our goal is to see forward momentum" by Saturday, not the full list. "We've never said it was a hard and fast deadline."

It wasn't clear whether Syrian officials needed more time to complete a formal declaration of their chemical arms, or whether the disarmament deal itself was in trouble.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry had described the date as the first of several "specific timelines" that would indicate whether Syria is committed to the deal that he and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had worked out.

"We agreed that Syria must submit within a week — not in 30 days, but in one week — a comprehensive listing," Kerry said Saturday. He said the U.S. would allow "no games, no room for avoidance, or anything less than full compliance."

Senior Obama administration officials had praised Russia for persuading Assad's government to relinquish its lethal chemical arsenal, one of the world's largest, by mid-2014 in a deal to avoid U.S. missile strikes in retaliation for the Aug. 21 poison gas attack that the U.S. says killed more than 1,000 people.

But Moscow's ability or willingness to push its ally in Damascus to meet the first deadline in the deal now is being questioned.

Kerry and Lavrov sought last weekend to portray the two powers as united. The gap between them, however, has become more apparent and is threatening to snarl efforts to craft a United Nations Security Council resolution that lays out how Syria is to meet its obligations.

The resolution needs to be complete before the first steps can be taken to impound and either remove or destroy Syria's arsenal. Diplomats said Western countries split with Russia in a meeting Tuesday over Western demands for tough enforcement of the agreement.

Diplomats hope to complete the resolution by Friday, but if they fall short the work may be delayed further next week because of the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, an international body based in The Hague, is expected to take several days to complete its analysis of the Syrian "initial declaration," and then will submit its report to the United Nations.

Gary Samore, who was President Obama's top arms control advisor until February, said the declaration is key because "it will provide an early test of whether this process is ever going to get off the ground."

Samore, now research chief for the Belfer Center at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, said he believes Russia is pushing Syria to comply. He also said, "Assad is going to try to hide some portion — maybe 10%, maybe 30% — whatever he thinks he can get away with."

Western diplomats close to the deliberations at the U.N. are wary that the Syrians may try to "cheat and retreat," as Saddam Hussein's government did for years in Iraq, to stymie U.N. weapons inspections.

"We're not going to lose a lot of faith in the Syrians, because we're not starting out with a lot," said one diplomat, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Western diplomats said they wanted to avoid a mistake of the U.N.'s battle with Hussein by starting out with an enforcement mechanism strong enough to prevent the Syrians from avoiding their obligations.

The Russians and Americans are sharply split over the use of the U.N.'s Chapter 7, which authorizes punitive actions, in any resolution. Russia has argued that it should be included only as a possible avenue for future action, while the United States, Britain and France want it conveyed automatically if there is noncompliance.

Russia also amplified its claims that rebels seeking to overthrow Assad, not the Syrian government, fired rockets filled with deadly sarin gas Aug. 21, and described a U.N. report on the incident as "politicized" and "one-sided."

U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky defended the report Wednesday, calling it "indisputable" and "thoroughly objective." Independent groups have analyzed data in the report and concluded that the rockets were fired from government-controlled areas into territory held or contested by rebels.

U.S. officials say they have seen no evidence that chemical weapons are stored or being used in areas held by the opposition.

Some experts argued that the one-week timeline was too generous. Robert M. Gates, former Defense secretary under George W. Bush and Obama, said this week that Assad should have been given a 48-hour ultimatum.

"It should be an easier task on the part of the Syrians compared to the Iraqis," said Charles Duelfer, who led the U.S. search for weapons of mass destruction after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

I'm shocked!  Do you possibly mean that they may not meet the deadlines?

Im sure it is just a simple misunderstanding... after all Stali...er...Putin has given assurances...  :)

Yeah it does seem like the more things change the more they stay the same when it comes to the ole soviets.

An agreement has been hammered out by the U.N. regarding the surrender and destruction of all chemical weapons owned by Syria.  The agreement is expected to be passed by a full 15 member committee today.  The agreement as drafted is legally binding, however the chapter seven permission regarding putative action against Syria should they fail the agreement will likely come in a secondary agreement.

To my view, this is the way the issue should be handled with all parties at the table and with U.N. oversight.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/world/middleeast/security-council-agrees-on-resolution-to-rid-syria-of-chemical-arms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

QuoteThe agreement hammered out after days of back-room negotiations, is a compromise among the United States, its allies and Russia about how to enforce the resolution, which would eliminate Syria's chemical arms program.

But the deal, when approved by the 15 members of the Security Council, would amount to the most significant international diplomatic initiative of the Syrian civil war. It would also be a remarkable turn for President Obama, who had been pushing for a military strike on Syria just a few weeks ago before accepting a Russian proposal to have Syria give up its chemical arsenal.

Western diplomats said the resolution would be legally binding and would stipulate that if Syria failed to abide by the terms, the Security Council would take measures under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, the strongest form of a council resolution. Such measures could include economic sanctions or even military action. But before any action could be taken, the issue would have to go back for further deliberations by the Security Council, on which Russia, like the other permanent members, holds a veto.

"This resolution makes clear there will be consequences for noncompliance," Samantha Power, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, said Thursday night.

In an earlier Twitter message, Ms. Power said the resolution established a "new norm" against the use of chemical weapons. Mark Lyall Grant, Britain's ambassador to the United Nations, said in another post that the resolution agreed to by the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France — the five permanent members of the Security Council — would be "binding and enforceable."

The diplomatic breakthrough on Syria came as Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said progress had been made toward a resolution of the nuclear dispute between his country and the West, suggesting it could happen in a year.

Mr. Zarif spoke optimistically after emerging from what he called a "very substantive, businesslike" meeting at the United Nations with representatives of the big powers. He also met face to face with Secretary of State John Kerry in one of the highest-level discussions between the estranged countries in years.

The entire 15-member Security Council began to discuss the Syria resolution agreed to by the permanent members of the Security Council on Thursday evening.

A vote on the resolution could come as early as Friday, the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, told reporters here Thursday night, as long as the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague, votes on its own Syria measure early Friday. A formal vote on the measure will not take place until the international organization that monitors compliance with the international treaty banning chemical weapons drafts procedures for inspecting and eliminating Syria's vast arsenal of poison gas.

The Syria resolution was a major milestone for the United Nations after years of largely unproductive discussions in the Security Council over the civil war in Syria, which has killed more than 100,000.

Just three weeks ago, the Obama administration grew openly frustrated at the inability to win Russian support for military action against the government of President Bashar al-Assad after a chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21 that killed more than 1,400 people. Ms. Power complained then, "There is no viable path forward in this Security Council."

Now, the council has agreed to a provision in the resolution stating that "the use of chemical weapons anywhere constitutes a threat to international peace and security."

Syria, the resolution states, "shall not use, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to other states or nonstate actors."

The measure notes that "in the event of noncompliance with this resolution, including unauthorized transfer of chemical weapons, or any use of chemical weapons by anyone in the Syrian Arab Republic," the Security Council can decide to "impose measures under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter."

While Western diplomats were praising the new resolution, much will depend on how it is ultimately put into effect in a nation that is caught in a bloody civil war.

According to the resolution, the director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the watchdog organization that polices the international treaty banning chemical weapons, or the secretary general of the United Nations would report any violations to the Security Council.

The council would then discuss what measures to impose for Syria's noncompliance.

American officials have said they were pleasantly surprised by the completeness of the Syrian government's declaration of its chemical weapons program, which was presented on Friday.

But far more formidable challenges lie ahead.

By November, international monitors are to inspect all of Syria's declared sites, and equipment to produce and mix chemical weapons is to be destroyed, according to a so-called framework agreement that was negotiated by the United States and Russia this month and that is to be enforced by the new Security Council resolution.

Syria's entire arsenal is to be eliminated by the middle of 2014, according to that accord, a process that Mr. Assad has said could take a year.

Skeptics worry that the process may become drawn out, as it was during the 1990s, when the United Nations sought to inspect Saddam Hussein's arsenal in Iraq. Syrian compliance, they fear, may be only partial, and the Russians, they worry, may use their veto power in the Security Council to buy the Assad government more time.

Proponents of the measure say Russia may be cooperative because it shares the West's concern about maintaining zero tolerance for chemical weapons use.

The diplomatic maneuvering over Syria came amid another drama at the United Nations.

Mr. Zarif, Iran's foreign minister, emerged smiling from a meeting with six world powers late Thursday afternoon as American and European officials announced that negotiations on "details" would be worked out in Geneva next month.

The meeting, led by the European Union's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, took place with the five permanent members of the Security Council, along with Germany. Mr. Kerry's separate meeting with Mr. Zarif lasted 30 minutes.

Ms. Ashton said she envisioned an "ambitious timetable" of next steps that would be discussed when the group meets in Geneva next month. The details, she said, will address what Iran needs to do, how soon, and how the international community can verify whether Iran is keeping its word. "Twelve months is a good time frame to think about implementation on the ground," she said.

"It was a substantial meeting," she told reporters here, "a good atmosphere, energetic."

Her attempts in the past to negotiate a settlement with Iran, including a European proposal for a nuclear deal, had not been fruitful. She said Thursday that Iran could choose to respond to her last proposal or submit a new one.

"The purpose of today was to set the tone and the framework," she said.

Mr. Zarif said Iran hoped to reach a détente "in a timely fashion" that would preserve its right to enrich uranium and convince the world that it is for civilian use. "Now we see if we can match our positive words with serious deeds," he said.

He said the "endgame" would be the lifting of all sanctions "within a short period of time."

Somini Sengupta and Rick Gladstone contributed reporting.

Thank god for the UN!  8)

Along those lines BT.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/09/26/226423567/even-as-it-criticizes-the-u-n-the-u-s-relies-on-it-too

Even As It Criticizes The U.N., The U.S. Relies On It, Too

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/26/226578728/u-s-official-russia-agrees-to-resolution-on-syria  (click link for full story)

QuoteRussia, along with the four other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, have agreed on a resolution concerning Syria's chemical weapons, the U.S. said today.

The draft resolution, a senior State Department official said in a statement, calls for oversight of Syria's surrender of chemical weapons and calls for "consequences" if Bashar Assad fails to comply

This just in.  The U.N. committee has delivered it's vote on the Syrian Chemical Weapons and the bill has passed requiring Syria to give up all chemical weapons to be destroyed.

http://www.cnn.com/?sr=fbmain  (click link for full story)

Quote-- The U.N. Security Council, capping a dramatic month of diplomacy, voted unanimously late Friday to require Syria to eliminate its arsenal of chemical weapons -- or face consequences.

"Today's resolution will ensure that the elimination of the Syrian chemical weapons program happens as soon as possible and with the utmost transparency and accountability," Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said.

A U.N. team will be dispatched to Syria on Tuesday.

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on September 27, 2013, 10:31:43 AM
Along those lines BT.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/09/26/226423567/even-as-it-criticizes-the-u-n-the-u-s-relies-on-it-too

Even As It Criticizes The U.N., The U.S. Relies On It, Too

Good read.

Had some in America and around the world not said "hell" no to Obama's plan to strike Syria, you know because of that "red line" people would already be dead and among them perhaps would be innocent individuals.  Now we are getting a look at the nasty underbelly of what drives so much in the way of military action taken by the United States.  It's appalling that there are those in this country as well as their partners outside that have no regard for the human cost and global impact of actions such as strikes on foreign lands.  Turns out that there were plenty of "interests" being served by the potential strike and it comes down to dollars and cents. 

http://www.mintpressnews.com/conflicts-of-interest-abounded-among-pundits-pushing-for-syria-strike/170463/
(click link for full story)

Quote

According to a recently published report by the Public Accountability Initiative, 22 media commentators and seven think tanks — all of whom directly helped drive the public and policy debates on intervening in Syria — failed to disclose their connections with defense and foreign policy firms that bear a vested interest in American involvement in Syria. This presents a problem, as typically these experts were used to give weight to certain media outlets' pundits — particularly through justifying a prolonged military involvement and verifying arguments that otherwise would be dismissed as biased or unfounded.

Stephen Hadley, a national security advisor to former president George W. Bush, argued intensively for military intervention in a host of appearances on CNN, MSNBC, FOX News and Bloomberg TV. In a Washington Post op-ed he authored, he stated:

    "The Arab Awakening has caused a crisis in the Middle East that will take years to sort out. There is one Middle East crisis, however, that must be resolved in months, not years. Every American committed to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon should urge Congress to grant President Obama authority to use military force against the Assad regime in Syria."

However, at no time during his public appearances did Hadley disclose that he was a director at Raytheon, the manufacturer of the Tomahawk cruise missile system cited as the weapon of choice for the potential strike against Syria. Hadley is the chair of Raytheon's public affairs committee, with 11,477 shares of Raytheon stock in his possession — shares whose cost spiked during the Syria debate. Hadley earns $128,500 annually in cash compensation from the company.

For some, the conflicts of interest were clear-cut — such as officer and board positions or shares in defense contracting companies. For others — who may have ties to private investment firms and consulting firms with client lists that are not automatically disclosed — the conflicts of interest may be difficult to spot or disguised.

"We found lots of industry ties. Some of them are stronger than others. Some really rise to the level of clear conflicts of interest," said Kevin Connor, PAI's director and a co-author of the report. "These networks and these commentators should err on the side of disclosure.

Done and Done!  No airstrikes needed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0   (click link for full story)

QuoteBEIRUT, Lebanon — Syria's ability to produce chemical weapons has been destroyed and its remaining toxic armaments secured, weapons inspectors said Thursday, as President Bashar al-Assad has offered unexpectedly robust cooperation, at least so far, with a Russian-United States accord to dismantle his arsenal
Elimination of Mr. Assad's manufacturing ability is the most significant milestone yet in a process that still faces a monumental task: destroying the government's 1,290 tons of declared chemical weapons in the midst of a bloody civil war that has killed well over 100,000 people and carved up control of the country.

Weapons inspectors who have been in the country just one month say that despite battles raging across the country, deep international disagreement over how to stop the war and even what United States officials say was an Israeli strike on a Syrian Army base late Wednesday night, Syria has so far met all of its commitments and deadlines.

By doing so, Mr. Assad's government can claim success in what it said would be a key benefit of the accord — seizing a new measure of credibility and portraying itself not as an outlaw regime but as a reliable and legitimate international player. But opponents of Mr. Assad, including the rebels, are deeply critical of the deal for that very reason — it has helped buttress his position but done nothing to stop the war.

"They want to tell you, 'It's not because you put a deadline — when we say something, we do it before the time,' " a pro-government Syrian journalist, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, said of Syrian officials. "The main problem with the West, until now it never understood how the Syrian regime works. Whenever you threaten them you won't get anything."

Mr. Assad's opponents have bitterly denounced the accord as a distraction, and they were dismayed that the chemical weapons attack in August that American officials say killed 1,400 men, women and children near Damascus led not to American military intervention, as President Obama initially threatened, but to an agreement that allows Mr. Assad's supporters to portray him as a statesman.

The deal also created a de facto expectation that Mr. Assad would remain in office at least until mid-2014, when the elimination of the weapons is supposed to be complete under the agreement, critics say. And Syrians — supporters and opponents of the government alike — widely considered chemical weapons a side issue that global leaders were focusing on, rather than finding ways to end the war and its humanitarian disaster

 
. ...Had some in America and around the world not said "hell" no to Obama's plan to strike Syria, you know because of that "red line" people would already be dead and among them perhaps would be innocent individuals

Slap yourself on the back more! LOL that hilarious, lots of people are dead, we just didn't kill them ( does it count if there own government kills them and not us?).  The shooting keeps going on, now keep in mind I don't care.  It doesn't affect me or anyone I know.  But please lets not pretend that the un inspection team that looked at only the locations that Syria admits were chemical weapons sites are the only ones that exist, they have no authorization to look anywhere else if they wanted to. Frankly as our greatest secretary of state said "What difference does it make now!"...  But the mother that has her sons killed with a bullet in the head can relax, after all he wasn't killed with a gas.

Unbelievable. 

What were the strategic goals of this country in Syria three months ago?
What were the strategic goals of Russia in Syria three months ago?
What were the strategic goals of the Syrians three months ago?

Who has accomplished their goals and who has not?

Although Syria is a Russian puppet and is not a major US priority, our "allies" in the area place great importance on the country and its activities.  Assad was in real trouble and his government was in danger of falling.  Not any more.  The US Administration was wildly outclassed by the Russians. 

The leadership in this country thought the goal was to put Assad out of power. The actual goal of this country (it's people) was to not get tangled in this ugly mess. So as much as any other party you mentioned this country accomplished it's goals and Russia and Syria had to cave on the chemical weapons.

We are supplying weapons and supplies to the rebels.  (Who are now losing badly.)  Many of them are supporting AQ in Iraq, which is currently petitioning the US Government for advanced weapons (F-16's, Abrams tanks and such) as well as the training and money to use them to defeat the AQ threat.  The Syrian rebels (becoming refugees) will be coming to the US (yes, the same ones who support AQ in Iraq).  Assad retains power.  The Russians retain "influence" and a base of operations in the Middle East, including Western Iraq which is now under the control of AQ.  Hamas continues to be supported and guided by....several countries but Syria is the back door supplier along with Egypt now.  Israel has thrown off any semblance of a nation at peace and sees the USG for what it has become, an impotent, incompetent, amateurish source of income and weapons that has essentially switched sides. 

So, yeah, we get to say we didn't "get tangled in this ugly mess" even though we all know that we have been involved in it for sixty five years.  We have now managed to alienate the Israelis, the Saudis, the Egyption's, the UAE, and any Iraqi's who still admit any American loyalties.  Notice that the news reports stipulate that "reported" Syrian WMD's are being destroyed.  That means that the Syrians have told us what they have....and we trust that (there are many questions not being answered on this, and our government is not pressing).  In the meantime, arms are flowing and armies are resupplying.  Iraq (look at a map, it is VERY important) is in danger of completely falling to Islamists and the same will likely happen to Libya and Afghanistan after the US leaves in a year.  Egypt is teetering, and much of the region is holding its breath. 

Look, this is not a military problem until seriously incompetent foreign policy forces us into the use of military power.  Syria was never a focus of US interests in the area but the bungling of the civil war in Syria (and our activities in it) has created a more dangerous world for the US. 

Yes we have been tangled for a long time and I agree the Administrations policy here has been bad. However it is a big improvement in our policy to not get involved in two decade long wars because  middle east  leaders act bad. I give the Administration no credit for this change it has been the American people who made the change.  We see that it may take a long time but diplomacy with Iran is the most important middle east initiative.

Quote from: NotNow on November 02, 2013, 10:13:23 AM
Syria was never a focus of US interests in the area but the bungling of the civil war in Syria (and our activities in it) has created a more dangerous world for the US. 

This is true but not significantly more dangerous. Our drone policy is likely more important.

Two questions Jeffrey...

1.  What did Middle Eastern leaders "acting bad" result in two decade long wars?  In other words, what do you think started the Iraqi war and the Afghanistan war?

2.  What is our "drone policy"?  Or perhaps, what is our assassination policy?

1. I guess acting bad was the excuse(harming their own citizens and small support for terrorists.) The final reason is that Bush wanted those wars.

2. I have not seen the inside of Obama's mind but the policy seems to be kill anyone he feels will have a chance of playing well in the press and don't report it if it looks like a kill that didn't work out that well.

I disagree with your views, but I hope your are more right than me.  I see great danger in both Iran and resulting from our recent foreign policy debacles.