PDA

View Full Version : Syrian Chemical Weapons Kill Or Maim a 1000



Nickdfresh
08-22-2013, 06:58 PM
Syria crisis: Could chemical weapons claims prompt Libya-style intervention?

The US has joined other countries in demanding that a UN team investigate Wednesday's suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria. But experts are quick to list reasons why a major US intervention is unlikely.

By Howard LaFranchi, Staff writer / August 22, 2013

Washington

The calls for forceful action from France and other Western powers in the wake of suspected large-scale chemical weapons use in Syria are prompting comparisons to the Western intervention in Libya two years ago.

In that case, the United States opted for “leading from behind” as European-led NATO forces toppled Muammar Qaddafi.

But tough rhetoric aside, a repeat of an intervention with America in a supporting role is very unlikely, say regional and transatlantic diplomatic analysts.

No Western intervention will occur unless proof emerges that the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad unleashed some of the regime’s fearsome chemical weapons on the Damascus suburbs this week, they agree. But even if proof eventually emerges – at this point a big “if” – the complexities of the Syrian conflict and the likelihood that any intervention would not see quick results would almost certainly require the US to take the lead.

And despite President Obama’s “red line” of a year ago concerning chemical weapons use in Syria, no one should expect a large-scale US intervention in Syria under any circumstances, the analysts add.

“Were there to be some kind of direct Western intervention in Syria, the US would be out front, not behind,” says Charles Kupchan, an expert in transatlantic relations at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. Europe’s two major defense powers, Britain and France, don’t have the “assets” to lead such an intervention, Syria is farther away from them than is Libya, and the international and regional complexities mean the US would have to take the lead.

“The likelihood of a repeat of Libya is low,” Mr. Kupchan says.

But that reality has not stopped France and others from assuming a more aggressive and out-front position toward the Syrian conflict.

That forcefulness was on display again Thursday, as French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius demanded a “reaction of force” if the use of chemical weapons is proved.

Turkey also called for immediate action, saying “all red lines have been crossed” by Mr. Assad in his fight with rebels seeking his ouster. And Britain warned that “we cannot rule out any option,” even though it said a “political solution” to Syria’s civil war remains preferable.

All this has a familiar ring, Kupchan says.

“This is not the first time that US allies have been more forward-leaning on some kind of intervention in Syria than the US,” says Kupchan, who is also a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University in Washington. “The British and the French have been steadily out front in wanting to provide arms to the opposition and on other more-forceful measures. But at the end of the day,” he adds, “the allies are rhetorically more out front of the US than in reality.”

The Obama administration was quick to join France, Britain, and 34 other nations in demanding that a United Nations chemical-weapons team already in Syria be allowed to investigate Wednesday’s suspected large-scale use of chemical weapons – possibly the nerve gas sarin, which Syria stockpiles – against rebel strongholds in the Damascus outskirts.

The White House demanded Thursday that Syria grant the UN team “immediate and unfettered access” to the attack site. But the administration has shied away from the interventionist language emanating from other Western capitals.

At the State Department Thursday, spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Mr. Obama has directed US intelligence agencies to work on determining if chemical weapons were used. The president has a range of options for action if an assessment finds the use of chemical weapons, she added.

Russia and China, both supporters of Assad, thwarted UN Security Council passage of a statement that called on the UN to “urgently investigate” the latest attack. Rebel sources claim up to 1,300 Syrians, including many women and children, were killed.

Instead, the approved, watered-down statement expresses a desire to clarify what happened in the attack, which it deems a “serious escalation” of the Syrian conflict. On Thursday, the UN sent the Syrian government a formal request that its team in Syria be allowed to investigate the attack site.

Arriving at the facts about just what happened Wednesday won’t be easy, weapons experts say. Photo and video evidence suggests some kind of chemical contact. But some point to videos showing people administering some kind of antidote via syringe to victims – adding that improper injection of some nerve-gas antidotes could have been deadlier than what might have been misconstrued as a chemical attack.

Another complicating factor: Syrian forces continued Thursday to bombard the areas affected by Wednesday’s attack, effectively putting the area off limits to any inspection and almost certainly destroying evidence that might be gathered.

Yet even if some proof of a chemical attack by Assad’s forces is forthcoming, the Western response is not likely to be on the scale of the Libya intervention, Kupchan says.

“Even if in the short term the Libya intervention was seen to have gone relatively well – Qaddafi was toppled – over the long term it’s seen as having had some questionable effects,” he says.

At the top of that list for Americans is Benghazi, the eastern Libyan city and cradle of the Libyan opposition where a year after Qaddafi’s death, a terrorist attack on the US mission left US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead.

But the list of “questionable” long-term effects of the intervention also includes the post-conflict flow of Qaddafi’s unsecured arms into Mali – where the French eventually intervened against pro-Al Qaeda militants – and mounting evidence of Libya turning into a “failed state,” Kupchan says.

Obama will come under intense pressure to intervene in Syria in some form if his “red line” was definitely crossed by a large-scale chemical attack, analysts say. But a leader who is already cautious about military intervention will probably be even more so after Libya, they add.

Syria’s volatile mix of moderate nationalists, jihadists, and foreign fighters in the opposition to Assad is just one reason that “getting more deeply involved in Syria is more complicated and dangerous than it was in Libya,” Kupchan says.

Other factors: Syria’s complex sectarian divide and the inability of Syria’s opposition to develop into a coherent fighting force on the ground.

Even with proof of a large-scale chemical weapons attack, US airstrikes on Syrian government buildings and military installations are the extent of what Kuphcan would expect to see.

Even then, he adds, he’d anticipate “standoff attacks,” perhaps by cruise missiles launched from ships, which would send a message to Assad without putting US forces in harm’s way.

CS Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2013/0822/Syria-crisis-Could-chemical-weapons-claims-prompt-Libya-style-intervention)

Nickdfresh
08-22-2013, 07:00 PM
Video footage or possible sarin nerve gas attack...

FORD
08-23-2013, 12:19 AM
Why can't they just take ASSad out with a drone strike and be done with it?

Because anything else is just going to give Benji Nuttyyahoo exactly what he wants..... World War III and a clear path to invade Iran.

Nickdfresh
08-24-2013, 07:22 PM
August 23, 2013 7:36 PM

U.S. preps for possible cruise missile attack on Syrian gov't forces

By David Martin, Holly Williams
<embed src="http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf" scale="noscale" salign="lt" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" background="#333333" width="425" height="279" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" FlashVars="si=254&&contentValue=50153607&shareUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57599944/u.s-preps-for-possible-cruise-missile-attack-on-syrian-govt-forces/" />
(CBS News) WASHINGTON - CBS News has learned that the Pentagon is making the initial preparations for a cruise missile attack on Syrian government forces. We say "initial preparations" because such an attack won't happen until the president gives the green light. And it was clear during an interview on CNN Friday that he is not there yet.

"If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country, without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented," the president told CNN, "then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it -- 'do we have the coalition to make it work?' Those are considerations that we have to take into account."

An attack on suburbs in Damascus suburbs has left hundreds dead. Poison gas used is suspected.

The attack on the Damascus suburbs, which left hundreds dead this week, is looking more and more like a poison gas was used. The United States warned Syria months ago that using chemical weapons could provoke a U.S. response.

U.S. detected activity at Syria chemical weapons sites before attack
Hundreds dead in Syria after alleged chemical weapons attack
Syria opposition group claims 1,300 killed in chemical attack in Damascus suburbs

President Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, sent out a Tweet on Friday, calling what happened "an apparent CW (chemical weapons) attack." And the commander of U.S. forces in the Mediterranean has ordered Navy warships to move closer to Syria to be ready for a possible cruise missile strike.

U.S. warships are moving closer to Syria for a possible cruise missile attack; but such an action has yet to be approved by President Obama

Launching cruise missiles from the sea would not risk any American lives. It would be a punitive strike designed not to topple Syrian dictator Bashir Assad but to convince him he cannot get away with using chemical weapons.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey is expected to present options for a strike at a White House meeting on Saturday.

Potential targets include command bunkers and launchers used to fire chemical weapons.

However, officials stress President Obama, who until now has steadfastly resisted calls for military intervention, has not made a decision.

U.S. intelligence detected activity at known Syrian chemical weapons sites in the days before the attack. At the time that did not appear out of the ordinary. But now it is part of the circumstantial evidence pointing toward an attack.

The clearest evidence would come from a team of U.N. experts already in Damascus to investigate earlier, smaller scale incidents involving suspected chemical weapons. So far they have not been allowed into the field. But with pictures providing graphic evidence of mass casualties, even Russia -- long one of the Assad regime's staunchest backers -- is calling for a U.N. investigation.

Whatever an investigation finds, the president will also have to consider what he would do next if he ordered a strike and Syria continued to use chemical weapons.

Meanwhile in Syria, two days after the alleged poison gas attack, more disturbing video has emerged of the aftermath. From it comes horrific scenes that show the dead and the dying -- many of them children.

One young boy described struggling to breathe and then losing consciousness. When he woke up in the hospital, he said, he could no longer see.

It's impossible to verify how many people died. But in a crowded, makeshift morgue, so many of the bodies were unidentified -- they were numbered.

Dr. Ghazwan Bwidany is caring for survivors of the attack at a clinic in Damascus. On Friday, CBS News spoke with him over the Internet. He said his mobile medical unit treated 900 people -- 70 of whom died.

"When you see these children," said Bwidany, "dying in front of our eyes, this is a very terrible feeling. I can't describe it."

Watch this video below of a Syrian mother saying goodbye to her children who were killed after reported gas attack:

Dr. Bwidany said some of the survivors have neurological problems, such as memory loss and confusion, that he believes could only be caused by a nerve agent.

So if this wasn't a chemical attack, what could it have been? "I don't know anything else that could make these symptoms, with this large number of injured," he said.

CBS News talked with a spokesman for the Syrian opposition Friday, who said he was angry and frustrated with the international community. He believes that if U.S. had delivered the arms it promised the opposition two months ago, the deadly attack may not have happened.

© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57599944/u.s-preps-for-possible-cruise-missile-attack-on-syrian-govt-forces/)

ELVIS
08-24-2013, 09:13 PM
Why can't they just take ASSad out with a drone strike and be done with it?



Why can't you stop believing the propaganda ??

Nickdfresh
08-25-2013, 03:00 PM
Well? What did Alex Jones tell you what to think?

FORD
08-25-2013, 03:11 PM
Why can't you stop believing the propaganda ??

No, that's just it.

I DON'T believe the propaganda.

ASSad is an ASShole, and he deserves to go, but he's only a threat to Syria itself. Not to Israel, not to the United States, or anybody else.

And I definitely do NOT believe that Harvey the Invisible Jihadist Rabbit and the Tooth Fairy Invisible Terraist Brigades (a.k.a. multi-national fictional terrorist organization) have any goddamned thing to do with ASSad's opposition.

On the other hand, it's quite possible that some of them could be Mossad dupes.

Nickdfresh
08-26-2013, 07:24 PM
We may well be firing missiles soon, for better or worse...

vandeleur
08-26-2013, 08:55 PM
@frankieboyle: A good way to deal with a complex political problem is to bomb it and see what happens

Funny and scary

FORD
08-26-2013, 10:58 PM
I see Judas IsKerryot gave his little "yep, we're going to do exactly what NuttyYahoo tells us to do. AGAIN" speech today.

How do you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake, Judas?

Remember that phrase? Or after 12 years of endorsing these blatant and deliberate Likud/PNAC "mistakes", do you no longer remember saying it?

Nickdfresh
08-27-2013, 06:42 AM
I think the map that is emerging is the next week is going to be spent putting together some sort of coalition, probably with NATO. The UN will be avoided because the Chinese and Russians will veto any sort of action through the UN. Right now, nothing significant has been deployed, so nothing is imminent...

vandeleur
08-27-2013, 10:06 AM
Interesting take on it

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/08/the-debate-over-intervention-in-syria.html?utm_source=tny&utm_campaign=generalsocial&utm_medium=twitter

So it looks like we’re going to bomb Assad.

Good.

Really? Why good?

Did you see the videos of those kids? I heard that ten thousand people were gassed. Hundreds of them died. This time, we have to do something.

Yes, I saw the videos.

And you don’t want to pound the shit out of him?

I want to pound the shit out of him.

But you think we shouldn’t do anything.

I didn’t say that. But I want you to explain what we’re going to achieve by bombing.

We’re going to let Assad know that chemical weapons are over the line. There’s a reason they’ve been illegal since Verdun or whenever.

Except when Saddam used them against the Kurds—we knew, and we didn’t say a word.

Is that a reason to let Assad use them against his people?

At this point, I don’t think Assad is too worried about the Geneva Conventions.

He should have to think hard before using them again.

He’s a bloody dictator fighting for survival. He’s going to do whatever he has to do.

Not if we really hurt him. Not if we pound his communications centers, his air-force bases, key government installations. He’ll be more likely to survive if he doesn’t use chemical weapons.

Killing civilians while we’re at it.

These would be very specific targets.

The wrong people always get killed.

Maybe. Probably. But if you were a Syrian being bombed by Assad every day, trying to keep your head down and your family alive, wouldn’t you want the world to respond, even if a few more people die? I think so.

Easy for you to say.

Hey, can we not personalize this?

Weren’t you just saying that I don’t care about dying children? (Pause.) So you want us to get involved in their civil war.

I’m not saying that.

But that’s what we’ll be doing. Intervening on the rebel side, tipping the balance in their favor.

Not necessarily. We’ll be drawing a line that says dictators don’t get to use W.M.D.s without consequences.

You can’t bomb targets on one side of a civil war without helping the other side.

It would be very temporary. We’d send Assad a clear message, and then we’d step back and let them go on fighting. We’re not getting involved any deeper than that, because I know what you’re going to say—

The rebels are a bunch of infighting, disorganized, jihadist thugs, and we can’t trust any of them.

I’m not saying we should.

And what do we do if Assad retaliates against Israel or Turkey? Or if he uses nerve gas somewhere else?

We hit him again.

And it escalates.

Not if we restrict it to cruise missiles and air strikes.

Now you’re scaring me. Have you forgotten Iraq?

Not for a single minute.

My point is that you can’t restrict it. You can’t use force for limited goals. You need to know what you’ll do after his next move, and the move after that.

It only escalates if we allow ourselves to get dragged in deeper. Kosovo didn’t escalate.

This isn’t Kosovo. The Syrian rebels aren’t the K.L.A. Assad isn’t Milosevic. Putin isn’t Yeltsin. This is far worse. Kosovo became a U.N. protectorate. That’s not going to happen in Syria.

You think Putin is going to risk a military confrontation with the U.S. and Europe?

I think Russia isn’t going to let Assad go down. Neither is Iran or Hezbollah. So they’ll escalate. This could be the thing that triggers an Israel-Iran war, and how do we stay out of that? My God, it feels like August, 1914.

That was a hundred years ago. Stop with the historical analogies.

You’re the one who brought up Verdun. And Kosovo.

I brought up Kosovo because you brought up Iraq. That’s the problem with these arguments. Iraq! Vietnam! Valley Forge! Agincourt! People resort to analogies so they don’t have to think about the matter at hand.

And because they don’t know anything about the matter at hand.

I know what I saw in those videos.

Thank God Obama doesn’t make foreign policy that way. He knows what he doesn’t know about Syria. He’s always thinking a few steps ahead. He’s not going to get steamrolled by John McCain and Anderson Cooper.

At a certain point, caution is another word for indecisiveness. Obama looks weak! Or worse—indifferent. Anyway, he should have thought ahead when he called chemical weapons a “red line.” He set that trap a year ago, and now we’re in it.

Why does it have to be a trap?

Because our credibility is on the line.

Thank you, Dr. Kissinger.

See, that’s another thing people do in these arguments.

What?

“You sound like so-and-so.” It shouldn’t matter who else is on your side. I mean, you’re in bed with Rand Paul. Anyway, credibility matters even if Kissinger said so. You have to do what you say you’re going to do, especially with bullies.

I don’t think Obama committed himself to any one course of action. But if he does bomb them, we’re involved in that war, and I sure hope his advisers have thought through all the potential consequences better than you have.

Inaction has consequences, too. Assad gases more people, the death toll hits two hundred thousand, the weapons get into Hezbollah’s hands, Iran moves ahead with its nuclear program, the Syrian rebels disintegrate and turn to international terrorism, the whole region goes up in sectarian flames.

And how does firing cruise missiles at Damascus prevent any of this?

It doesn’t. But, look, all of this is already happening with us sitting it out. If we put a gun to Assad’s head, we might be able to have more influence over the outcome. At least we can prevent him from winning.

A violent stalemate. How wonderful for the Syrians. Some people think that’s the best solution for us.

I’m not saying that.

What are you saying?

I don’t know. I had it worked out in my head until we started talking. (Pause.) But we need to do something this time.

Not just to do something.

All right. Not just to do something. But could you do me a favor?
What’s that?

While you’re doing nothing, could you please be unhappy about it ?

I am.

vandeleur
08-27-2013, 10:12 AM
I don't usually get involved in front line fights , but saying as all the more vocal front line regs seem quiet at the mo I'll thro my 2 cents in.

I say when in doubt do the exact polar opposite of what Tony Blair suggests .

WACF
08-27-2013, 11:13 AM
It is time to sit this out.

My first reaction was hell ya...fire away.

But what happens....we end up helping the same people we fought in Afghanistan.

In Syria the "Opposition" executes men for being the wrong kind of Muslim.

It is a fucking mess...the UN is past it's expiry date and pretty much lost any creditability it once held.

Sit it out.

sadaist
08-27-2013, 11:15 AM
I am having serious flashbacks. When John Kerry was speaking about Syria I coulda swore it was Colin Powell speaking of Iraq. I honestly think the opposition themselves used the chemical weapons on their own people. Assad had absolutely zero to gain and everything to lose if he did this. It just doesn't make any sense. He is evil but he is not stupid. And to these people, having your own die for the cause is martyrdom.

This is all just a ploy to help the opposition (Al Qaeda) without actually providing them with the weapons so they can turn around and kill us in a year. Help Al Qaeda overthrow Assad by providing them with weapons? Or help them by weakening Assads military with cruise missiles from afar? Yeah, cruise missiles. We just needed the excuse to go in. I know, hey, why don't you guys use the chemical weapons on your own so we can blame Assad and have our excuse to go in and help you without saying we're helping you.

It's all a bunch of crooked shit that is not what we as the general public are being told or shown. Every move here has been pre planned for a long time to drum up public outrage so we support the governments decision.

We need to get the fuck out of the middle east, all of it. They hate us. They do nothing for us. These are not our fights. We want to promote freedom? Let these people be free to determine their own fates. Their own futures. Just like we did 225 years ago. They will be happier with us out. We will be happier with us out. And don't worry, they will still sell us their oil no matter what. They need to survive by selling their one good to the world. And if they don't, we have plenty of other options.

sadaist
08-27-2013, 11:30 AM
It is time to sit this out.





This.

FORD
08-27-2013, 05:54 PM
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2013/130827-media-goes-into-overdrive-as-us-ponders-syria-strike.jpg

ODShowtime
08-27-2013, 06:11 PM
If I was Al Qaeda, I would definitely be interested in staging a nerve gas attack on the Syrian people and casting blame on Assad. They would benefit the most from this turn of events, in my opinion. Oh and also the US military industrial complex.

FORD
08-27-2013, 06:41 PM
....look what the treasonous piece of shit William Kristol published in his own Weakly Standard......



Dear Mr. President:

Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has once again violated your red line, using chemical weapons to kill as many as 1,400 people in the suburbs of Damascus. You have said that large-scale use of chemical weapons in Syria would implicate “core national interests,” including “making sure that weapons of mass destruction are not proliferating, as well as needing to protect our allies [and] our bases in the region.” The world—including Iran, North Korea, and other potential aggressors who seek or possess weapons of mass of destruction—is now watching to see how you respond.

We urge you to respond decisively by imposing meaningful consequences on the Assad regime. At a minimum, the United States, along with willing allies and partners, should use standoff weapons and airpower to target the Syrian dictatorship’s military units that were involved in the recent large-scale use of chemical weapons. It should also provide vetted moderate elements of Syria’s armed opposition with the military support required to identify and strike regime units armed with chemical weapons.

Moreover, the United States and other willing nations should consider direct military strikes against the pillars of the Assad regime. The objectives should be not only to ensure that Assad’s chemical weapons no longer threaten America, our allies in the region or the Syrian people, but also to deter or destroy the Assad regime’s airpower and other conventional military means of committing atrocities against civilian non-combatants. At the same time, the United States should accelerate efforts to vet, train, and arm moderate elements of Syria’s armed opposition, with the goal of empowering them to prevail against both the Assad regime and the growing presence of Al Qaeda-affiliated and other extremist rebel factions in the country.

Left unanswered, the Assad regime’s mounting attacks with chemical weapons will show the world that America’s red lines are only empty threats. It is a dangerous and destabilizing message that will surely come to haunt us—one that will certainly embolden Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons capability despite your repeated warnings that doing so is unacceptable. It is therefore time for the United States to take meaningful and decisive actions to stem the Assad regime’s relentless aggression, and help shape and influence the foundations for the post-Assad Syria that you have said is inevitable.

Sincerely,

Ammar Abdulhamid
Elliott Abrams
Dr. Fouad Ajami
Dr. Michael Auslin
Gary Bauer
Paul Berman
Max Boot
Ellen Bork
Ambassador L. Paul Bremer
Matthew R. J. Brodsky
Dr. Eliot A. Cohen
Senator Norm Coleman
Ambassador William Courtney
Seth Cropsey
James S. Denton
Paula A. DeSutter
Larry Diamond
Dr. Paula J. Dobriansky
Thomas Donnelly
Dr. Michael Doran
Mark Dubowitz
Dr. Colin Dueck
Dr. Nicholas Eberstadt
Ambassador Eric S. Edelman
Reuel Marc Gerecht
Abe Greenwald
Christopher J. Griffin
John P. Hannah
Bruce Pitcairn Jackson
Ash Jain
Dr. Kenneth Jensen
Allison Johnson
Dr. Robert G. Joseph
Dr. Robert Kagan
Lawrence F. Kaplan
Jamie Kirchick
Irina Krasovskaya
Dr. William Kristol
Bernard-Henri Levy
Dr. Robert J. Lieber
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
Tod Lindberg
Dr. Thomas G. Mahnken
Dr. Michael Makovsky
Ann Marlowe
Dr. Clifford D. May
Dr. Alan Mendoza
Dr. Joshua Muravchik
Governor Tim Pawlenty
Martin Peretz
Danielle Pletka
Dr. David Pollock
Arch Puddington
Karl Rove
Randy Scheunemann
Dan Senor
Ambassador John Shattuck
Lee Smith
Henry D. Sokolski
James Traub
Ambassador Mark D. Wallace
Michael Weiss
Leon Wieseltier
Khawla Yusuf
Robert Zarate
Dr. Radwan Ziadeh

Y'all remember which fascist terrorist war criminal organization (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) was famous for publishing letters like that, and what they eventually led up to (http://tvnewslies.org/html/stop_ignoring_9_11___pnac.html), right??

FORD
08-27-2013, 10:04 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRbimSYh2ow

FORD
08-27-2013, 11:48 PM
http://www.clowncrack.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Surgical-Strike.jpg

Nickdfresh
08-28-2013, 07:05 AM
The U.S. Navy has several destroyers in place to launch...

Nickdfresh
08-28-2013, 07:09 AM
If I was Al Qaeda, I would definitely be interested in staging a nerve gas attack on the Syrian people and casting blame on Assad. They would benefit the most from this turn of events, in my opinion. Oh and also the US military industrial complex.

I just heard they have chatter of Syrian forces talking about conducting the attacks. Also, the scope and scale of the attacks show that it had to have been done by a trained army with doctrine for use of chemical weapons: i.e. launching chems in the morning where the weather would not mitigate the chemicals as quickly...

ashstralia
08-28-2013, 08:10 AM
Oh dear...
This could be the big one.

FORD
08-29-2013, 11:18 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWXAtVOM_s0

FORD
08-29-2013, 11:23 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA6tSRVR9_k

Seshmeister
08-29-2013, 11:53 AM
....look what the treasonous piece of shit William Kristol published in his own Weakly Standard......



Y'all remember which fascist terrorist war criminal organization (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) was famous for publishing letters like that, and what they eventually led up to (http://tvnewslies.org/html/stop_ignoring_9_11___pnac.html), right??



Ambassador L. Paul Bremer has a fucking nerve advising anyone about anything.

He should probably be in jail.

FORD
08-29-2013, 11:55 AM
Every last goddamned one of those treasonous fucks should be in jail :mad:

Certainly deserve it far more than Bradley Chelsea Manning.

FORD
08-29-2013, 03:02 PM
http://sphotos-a-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/p480x480/1239491_193978597446208_175869235_n.jpg

GLOBAL No War with Syria RALLIES HAPPENING THIS SATURDAY AUGUST 31st AROUND THE WORLD...
PLEASE GET INVOLVED. SHARE THIS TO STOP THIS ILLEGAL AND UNJUST WAR! #NoWarwithSyria

Here's how you can become involved...

► PLAN OF ACTION TO OPPOSE ILLEGAL & UNCONSTITUTIONAL WAR W/SYRIA :

Activists are launching global rallies on Saturday, August 31st in every city and town in the world.

Here's how you get involved:

Go to the FB search bar and search for "No War with Syria Rally (YOUR CITY)"

Join the event, invite ALL of your friends to join it as well, then get involved with the locals that are already on the event page to help them in any way you can.

*If there is no event page made for your location yet, please make one. Here's how:

• Click on your event tab from your FB homepage.

• Click "create an event".

• Name the event "No War with Syria Rally (YOUR CITY)" .

• Make sure you set the privacy to public so other people can find it when they search for it.

• Pick a central and relevant location and start time for your area (please make it Saturday, August 31st).

• Invite ALL of your friends and encourage everyone else to invite their friends as well and do whatever else you can to let people know about the rally.

• Try to get some volunteers together to make banners to do some canvassing on Friday, the night before your rally. Contact the local overpass light brigade or set one up yourself. Make signs.

• Pass out flyers in the days leading up to your rally. If you can't afford them, ask for some donations. Some local businesses may also be willing to help you out with printing.

• Contact other activist groups in your area for help (Occupy groups, anti-war groups, Veterans for Peace groups, Code Pink, civil liberty groups, etc.).

• Contact local media and let them know about your rally. Focus on independent journalists in your area.

• Use hashtag #NoWarwithSyria for your march and use it on FB, Twitter, and Instagram.

• The rest is up to your discretion to handle locally.

THE TIME TO CHANGE THE WORLD AND STOP THE WAR IS NOW. SHARE THIS INFORMATION WITH ANYONE AND EVERYONE YOU KNOW, THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT LIVES DEPEND ON IT.

1) Worldwide call for a ceasefire in #Syria
2) Halt of arms sales to both sides.
3) Humanitarian aid to the Syrian refugees
Share your thoughts!

Thank you! Solidarity Worldwide!

Kristy
08-29-2013, 03:27 PM
The U.S. Navy has several destroyers in place to launch...

Your Wikiening is on fire these days, Nick.

vandeleur
08-29-2013, 06:12 PM
British parliament have just voted against british military involvement in Syria .
This isn't the last of it but its clear that although these are horrifying times in Syria there isn't any support that I can see for military involvement in the uk .
Am sure this isn't the last of it . Or the end of government attempts to change this situation .

Nickdfresh
08-29-2013, 08:11 PM
Your Wikiening is on fire these days, Nick.

Unlike your stale, rip off of others' shtick. You did notice I actually posted a CSM article, or are you too busy dreaming of fuck-killing Peyton Manning?

Hardrock69
08-29-2013, 09:01 PM
On the one hand, I don't believe the gas attacks were done by the Syrian government just because Obama and his overlords say so.

I am not stupid.

On the other hand, just the fact that the stupid motherfucker refuses to step down when his subjects have determined he has outlived his usefulness....to the point where he actively orders his people to murder civilians.....is appalling.

The motherfucker deserves to DIE for genocide.

So even though I say the US has questionable grounds for attacking Syria....and we DAMN sure can't afford to do so on a purely FINANCIAL level.......I say anything that happens that causes that goddamnable fuck to DIE is a good thing!!!!

:mad:

FORD
08-29-2013, 10:09 PM
https://sphotos-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1240510_10153220256850503_308455304_n.jpg

Hardrock69
08-30-2013, 12:39 AM
We are not all the way out of AssRamistan yet either.

The Military Industrial Complex is hungry for more trillions of dollars.....

Seshmeister
08-30-2013, 06:23 AM
We're out! - Good...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

Syria crisis: Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action

MPs have rejected possible UK military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government to deter the use of chemical weapons.

David Cameron said he would respect the defeat of a government motion by 285-272, ruling out joining US-led strikes.

The US said it would "continue to consult" with the UK, "one of our closest allies and friends".

France said the UK's vote does not change its resolve on the need to act in Syria.

Russia - which has close ties with the Assad government - welcomed Britain's rejection of a military strike.

The prime minister's call for a military response in Syria followed a suspected chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of the capital Damascus on 21 August, in which hundreds of people are reported to have died.

The US and UK say the Assad government was behind the attack - a claim denied by Damascus, which blames the rebels.

Assad said Syria would defend itself against any aggression.

The UK government's motion was in support of military action in Syria if it was backed up by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors, who are investigating the attack.

They are due to finish their work on Friday and give their preliminary findings to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at the weekend.

After the vote Prime Minster David Cameron said it was clear Parliament did not want action and "the government will act accordingly".

Chancellor George Osborne told Radio 4's Today programme there would now be "national soul searching about our role in the world".

He added: "I hope this doesn't become a moment when we turn our back on all of the world's problems."

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond had told BBC's Newsnight programme that he and the prime minister were "disappointed" with the result, saying it would harm Britain's "special relationship" with Washington.

But he said he did not expect Britain's decision to "stop any action" by other countries.

Labour leader Ed Miliband said on Friday that the House of Commons had spoken "for the people of Britain".

"People are deeply concerned about the chemical weapons attacks in Syria, but they want us to learn the lessons of Iraq," he said.

"They don't want a rush to war. They want things done in the right way, working with the international community."

He said Britain "doesn't need reckless and impulsive leadership, it needs calm and measured leadership".

Ian Pannell: The victims "arrived like the walking dead"

Mr Miliband said Britain's relationship with the US "remains strong" despite the vote. He said there is a lesson that Britain must do what is in its national interest, even if that means doing something different to America.

He also said that Mr Cameron must "find other ways" to put pressure on Mr Assad.

The result of the vote was condemned by former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Ashdown, who tweeted that in "50 years trying to serve my country I have never felt so depressed [or] ashamed".

He later told the BBC that by doing nothing President Assad will use chemical weapons more "those weapons will become more commonplace in the Middle East battlefield" and "we will feel the effects of that as well".

Thirty Conservative and nine Liberal Democrat MPs voted against the government's motion.

The defeat comes as a potential blow to the authority of Mr Cameron, who had already watered down a government motion proposing military action, in response to Labour's demands for more evidence of President Assad's guilt.


Britain will not be involved in any military action that takes place in Syria, the chancellor has confirmed
The BBC's political editor Nick Robinson said the prime minister had now lost control of his own foreign and defence policy, and as a result he will cut a diminished figure on the international stage.

He added that some strong advocates of the transatlantic relationship were worried that America may now question the value and reliability of Britain as an ally.

During the debate, Labour had seen its own amendment - calling for "compelling" evidence that the regime was responsible for chemical attacks - rejected by MPs by 114 votes.

But, unexpectedly, MPs also rejected the government's motion.

Labour's shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander said the government defeat was down to the "fatally flawed" case put to MPs by Mr Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, claiming the pair's credibility was now diminished.

'The system works'
Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said so many of Mr Cameron's own MPs had voted with Labour because they were now "unwilling to take him at his word".

Conservative rebel Crispin Blunt said he hoped the vote would "relieve ourselves of some of this imperial pretension that a country of our size can seek to be involved in every conceivable conflict that's going on around the world".


Obama administration officials on Thursday told a group of US lawmakers in a conference call that it was "beyond a doubt that chemical weapons were used, and used intentionally by the Assad regime," said Eliot Engel, the senior Democratic member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said the US would "continue to work with Britain and consult with Britain as we are with all our allies".

On Friday French President Francois Hollande told the newspaper Le Monde that he would still be willing to take action without Britain's involvement.

He said he supported taking "firm" punitive action over an attack he said had caused "irreparable" harm to the Syrian people.

Germany, however, has ruled out taking part. Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle told the Osnabruecker Zeitung newspaper that "such participation has not been sought nor is it being considered by us".

Meanwhile, Mr Assad told a group of Yemeni MPs on Thursday that Syria would defend itself against any aggression, according to Syria's Sana news agency.

"Syria, with its steadfast people and brave army, will continue eliminating terrorism, which is utilised by Israel and Western countries to serve their interests in fragmenting the region," he said.

Nickdfresh
08-30-2013, 06:47 AM
Pussies... :D

WACF
08-30-2013, 12:01 PM
Glad the UK bowed out.

This has been a very bizarre process...the media going on and on about how a strike will happen.

Could you imagine WWII with media and people in power with loose lips like now?

tbone888
08-30-2013, 01:43 PM
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/facebook-post-said-to-be-by-assads-son-dares-americans-to-attack/?_r=0

Nickdfresh
08-30-2013, 06:17 PM
U.S. military officers have deep doubts about impact, wisdom of a U.S. strike on Syria
By Ernesto Londoño, Published: August 29

The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.

Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.

Former and current officers, many with the painful lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan on their minds, said the main reservations concern the potential unintended consequences of launching cruise missiles against Syria.

Some questioned the use of military force as a punitive measure and suggested that the White House lacks a coherent strategy. If the administration is ambivalent about the wisdom of defeating or crippling the Syrian leader, possibly setting the stage for Damascus to fall to fundamentalist rebels, they said, the military objective of strikes on Assad’s military targets is at best ambiguous.

“There’s a broad naivete in the political class about America’s obligations in foreign policy issues, and scary simplicity about the effects that employing American military power can achieve,” said retired Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the run-up to the Iraq war, noting that many of his contemporaries are alarmed by the plan.

New cycle of attacks?

Marine Lt. Col. Gordon Miller, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, warned this week of “potentially devastating consequences, including a fresh round of chemical weapons attacks and a military response by Israel.”

“If President [Bashar al-Assad] were to absorb the strikes and use chemical weapons again, this would be a significant blow to the United States’ credibility and it would be compelled to escalate the assault on Syria to achieve the original objectives,” Miller wrote in a commentary for the think tank.

A National Security Council spokeswoman said Thursday she would not discuss “internal deliberations.” White House officials reiterated Thursday that the administration is not contemplating a protracted military engagement.

Still, many in the military are skeptical. Getting drawn into the Syrian war, they fear, could distract the Pentagon in the midst of a vexing mission: its exit from Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are still being killed regularly. A young Army officer who is wrapping up a year-long tour there said soldiers were surprised to learn about the looming strike, calling the prospect “very dangerous.”

“I can’t believe the president is even considering it,” said the officer, who like most officers interviewed for this story agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity because military personnel are reluctant to criticize policymakers while military campaigns are being planned. “We have been fighting the last 10 years a counterinsurgency war. Syria has modern weaponry. We would have to retrain for a conventional war.”

Dempsey’s warning

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned in great detail about the risks and pitfalls of U.S. military intervention in Syria.

“As we weigh our options, we should be able to conclude with some confidence that use of force will move us toward the intended outcome,” Dempsey wrote last month in a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.”

Dempsey has not spoken publicly about the administration’s planned strike on Syria, and it is unclear to what extent his position shifted after last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack. Dempsey said this month in an interview with ABC News that the lessons of Iraq weigh heavily on his calculations regarding Syria.

“It has branded in me the idea that the use of military power must be part of an overall strategic solution that includes international partners and a whole of government,” he said in the Aug. 4 interview. “Simply the application of force rarely produces and, in fact, maybe never produces the outcome we seek.”

The recently retired head of the U.S. Central Command, Gen. James Mattis, said last month at a security conference that the United States has “no moral obligation to do the impossible” in Syria. “If Americans take ownership of this, this is going to be a full-throated, very, very serious war,” said Mattis, who as Centcom chief oversaw planning for a range of U.S. military responses in Syria.

The potential consequences of a U.S. strike include a retaliatory attack by the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah — which supports Assad — on Israel, as well as cyberattacks on U.S. targets and infrastructure, U.S. military officials said.

“What is the political end state we’re trying to achieve?” said a retired senior officer involved in Middle East operational planning who said his concerns are widely shared by active-duty military leaders. “I don’t know what it is. We say it’s not regime change. If it’s punishment, there are other ways to punish.” The former senior officer said that those who are expressing alarm at the risks inherent in the plan “are not being heard other than in a pro-forma manner.”

President Obama said in a PBS interview on Wednesday that he is not contemplating a lengthy engagement, but instead “limited, tailored approaches.”

A retired Central Command officer said the administration’s plan would “gravely disappoint our allies and accomplish little other than to be seen as doing something.”

“It will be seen as a half measure by our allies in the Middle East,” the officer said. “Iran and Syria will portray it as proof that the U.S. is unwilling to defend its interests in the region.”

Still, some within the military, while apprehensive, support striking Syria. W. Andrew Terrill, a Middle East expert at the U.S. Army War College, said the limited history of the use of chemical weapons in the region suggests that a muted response from the West can be dangerous.

“There is a feeling as you look back that if you don’t stand up to chemical weapons, they’re going to take it as a green light and use them on a recurring basis,” he said.

An Army lieutenant colonel said the White House has only bad options but should resist the urge to abort the plan now.

“When a president draws a red line, for better or worse, it’s policy,” he said, referring to Obama’s declaration last year about Syria’s potential use of chemical weapons. “It cannot appear to be scared or tepid. Remember, with respect to policy choices concerning Syria, we are discussing degrees of bad and worse.”

© The Washington Post Company (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-military-officers-have-deep-doubts-about-impact-wisdom-of-a-us-strike-on-syria/2013/08/29/825dd5d4-10ee-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html?tid=ts_carousel)

Va Beach VH Fan
08-30-2013, 08:45 PM
The President, any U.S. President, is in a really tough situation with this...

On one hand, majority of Americans want nothing to do with this situation.... We're sick of "war"....

But I just can't see Obama, or even if this happened during a Republican administration, doing nothing... It just opens up a chemical can of worms in that region.... If we let Syria get away with it, will that prompt Iran?

However, if/when he does order the strike, IMO he had better take out Assad, otherwise there is not much benefit, to me anyway....

Sure, he could bomb the oil refineries, but that would probably drive up the price of gas here....

But if he just bombs a few Government buildings, and then Assad gets paraded out after it's over, it will be a PR disaster....

Like I said, really difficult situation....

Nickdfresh
08-30-2013, 09:33 PM
I don't think Syria has much in the way of oil refineries. The sky appears to be the limit there on asshole refineries, though...

FORD
08-30-2013, 09:41 PM
Actually, it's not the oil so much as it is the natural gas......

The Syrian "civil war" began soon after Syria, Iran, and Iraq signed a deal to build a gas pipeline.

But the Saudis and Qatar want THEIR pipeline to dominate the region.

Coincidence?

FORD
08-31-2013, 12:22 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vuz2rR8jQCE

Nickdfresh
08-31-2013, 12:36 PM
Actually, it's not the oil so much as it is the natural gas......

The Syrian "civil war" began soon after Syria, Iran, and Iraq signed a deal to build a gas pipeline.

But the Saudis and Qatar want THEIR pipeline to dominate the region.

Coincidence?

Probably.

I think it also began when the Syrian secret police cunts abducted several boys for painting anti-Assad slogans on walls. Then they posted pic's of the boys being tortured and raped and this set off the latest rebellion. There have been several uprisings against the Assad dynasty over the years as their a minority regime drawn from the Druze. This one is just more successful...

Va Beach VH Fan
08-31-2013, 02:09 PM
So the President is now going to ask for Congressional approval to act on Syria, although he admitted he's made his decision and wants to act.

I applaud this.

Let the Democracy do what it's there for, although I continue to be pissed that the United States hasn't formally declared war since 1942, not that has stopped about a dozen "wars" since then.....

So now the question becomes, will the Republicans, who've never seen a war they didn't love, stay on political lines and vote no to spite Obama ??

Dr. Love
08-31-2013, 03:03 PM
I doubt it, but let's hope the republicans spite him and enough democrats have sense to tell him no. And let's hope he abides by their decision.

Nickdfresh
08-31-2013, 04:01 PM
It's a weird situation because there isn't really a partisan divide on this. Many Republicans are both for and against a strike as are many Democrats. It should be a very interesting debate...

FORD
08-31-2013, 05:08 PM
MSNBC has a "special report" on right now, featuring the "balanced" panel of Mrs. Alan Greenspan, Chuck Fraud, and Douche Gregory.

Last hour they had that ugly assed Frankenstein looking PNAC war criminal Mark Ginsberg blabbing away.

And this is the supposed "liberal" channel??

Nickdfresh
08-31-2013, 06:12 PM
It's already all over CNN with the constant speculation and redundant factoids...

sadaist
09-01-2013, 12:09 AM
My take on Obamas speech today.


He wants to act tough, but wants congress to vote NO to bail him out of this jam.

Va Beach VH Fan
09-01-2013, 08:55 AM
My take on Obamas speech today.


He wants to act tough, but wants congress to vote NO to bail him out of this jam.


Act tough? Bail him out?

That couldn't be further from the truth....

He's "acting tough" because he wants to take action for a chemical attack that killed not only 1400 people but over 400 children ??

You know, I didn't want to go down this road, but fuck it....

If this happened during a Bush or Reagan administration, right wingers in Congress would be lapping this shit up.... Everyone knows it.....

Nickdfresh
09-01-2013, 10:08 AM
My take on Obamas speech today.


He wants to act tough, but wants congress to vote NO to bail him out of this jam.

I don't think they're going too. I disagree, I think he wants to bomb. But the UK Parliament's rejection of any military action has put him in a bind...

sadaist
09-01-2013, 10:54 AM
Act tough? Bail him out?

That couldn't be further from the truth....

He's "acting tough" because he wants to take action for a chemical attack that killed not only 1400 people but over 400 children ??

You know, I didn't want to go down this road, but fuck it....

If this happened during a Bush or Reagan administration, right wingers in Congress would be lapping this shit up.... Everyone knows it.....



Well here's the rub. We did lap it up, and got burned bad not all that long ago. And that was from a President that we figured would be ready for war. Now we are getting the same story from a Peace Prize winner? Someone who did nothing but slam the last President for doing the same things he is doing now. The hypocrisy is astounding. As for 1400 I'm not sold on that number. The Doctors Without Borders were saying 375 or something similar. Doesn't mean that a smaller number is better, it just means that no one really has a fucking clue what is really going on right now.

Obama made a red line he thought Assad wouldn't cross. It now appears it was crossed and Obama has no choice but to follow through. He does not want to but must. Therefore he says he wants to attack yet another country, but will allow congress to vote. That way when congress says no he won't look like a liar making fake red lines.

WACF
09-01-2013, 11:04 AM
Act tough? Bail him out?

That couldn't be further from the truth....

He's "acting tough" because he wants to take action for a chemical attack that killed not only 1400 people but over 400 children ??

You know, I didn't want to go down this road, but fuck it....

If this happened during a Bush or Reagan administration, right wingers in Congress would be lapping this shit up.... Everyone knows it.....

There is a real rub here...

Is it then Okay to just Burn, Rape, Torture, Shoot, Shell or Bomb the same people?

Va Beach VH Fan
09-01-2013, 11:33 AM
Someone who did nothing but slam the last President for doing the same things he is doing now. The hypocrisy is astounding.

The same thing?

Completely fabricating evidence for a war that killed 4,500 Americans, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is equivalent to the launching of a chemical attack ??


Come on man......

sadaist
09-01-2013, 11:38 AM
The same thing?

Completely fabricating evidence for a war that killed 4,500 Americans, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is equivalent to the launching of a chemical attack ??


Come on man......


Sure feels the same. That's all I'm saying. Who knows what poking at Syria will lead to. Very well could lead to us getting entrenched in another 10 year shit hole where we don't belong. But when John Kerry is selling us on what happened, I have flashbacks of Colin Powell doing the same thing.

I said this before somewhere around here, but we need to be the fuck out of the middle east. These civil wars are older than our constitution and in many cases our bible. Not our fucking place to be involved. And why is it if some country does something bad it's our job to punish them? That thinking is bad. We should be punishing countries that do something bad to us.

Va Beach VH Fan
09-01-2013, 12:58 PM
Sure feels the same. That's all I'm saying. Who knows what poking at Syria will lead to. Very well could lead to us getting entrenched in another 10 year shit hole where we don't belong. But when John Kerry is selling us on what happened, I have flashbacks of Colin Powell doing the same thing.

I said this before somewhere around here, but we need to be the fuck out of the middle east. These civil wars are older than our constitution and in many cases our bible. Not our fucking place to be involved. And why is it if some country does something bad it's our job to punish them? That thinking is bad. We should be punishing countries that do something bad to us.


Well, if you're going to immediately believe that Kerry is purposely lying and compare that to what Powell did, then any further debate is futile.....

sadaist
09-01-2013, 01:18 PM
Well, if you're going to immediately believe that Kerry is purposely lying and compare that to what Powell did, then any further debate is futile.....


I don't think Colin was lying purposely either. I think he was believing the WRONG information given to him at the time.

Anyways....

Say we send in 100 cruise missiles. Then what? Syria will be broken & the rebels will have a surge & make a push to overthrow Assad? Great movie ending. Lemme tell you what is really gonna happen.

Syria will launch a barrage of missiles in to Israel. Iran may also assist them as will Hezbollah. Israel goes full strike mode, we are their top ally and assist them. Now we got Russia supporting Iran & Syria. We may be looking at a humongous full blown war unlike Iraq or Afghanistan ever were.

This is gonna open a nasty can of worms.

Who are our allies that want us to succeed against Assad? France, Hamas, Al Qaeda. Hmmm......

So what is Obamas plan after we strike? I wanna hear him talk about what he believes Syria will do AFTER we shoot in a bunch of strategic missiles. What's the end game here? I don't wanna know just what we are doing in the first quarter, I want the whole game plan.

FORD
09-01-2013, 01:19 PM
Actually, Judas's little speech kinda sounded more like Rummy than Powell, when he claimed they know all the who when where why and what about this attack. Reminded me of this bullshit......


"We know where the weapons of mass destruction are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

At least Judas didn't bring up the known unknowns, or the unknown knowns, or all that other shit that Rummy did........

vandeleur
09-01-2013, 01:33 PM
Maybe the simple difference between this and Iraq /Afghanistan is people are little better informed . People get yeah we are gonna bomb shit , but so what .
What will it achieve ?
What are our defined objectives ?
What after that ?
What's the end game ?
What do we do when this escalates ?

All honest questions .

Va Beach VH Fan
09-01-2013, 01:47 PM
Maybe the simple difference between this and Iraq /Afghanistan is people are little better informed . People get yeah we are gonna bomb shit , but so what .
What will it achieve ?
What are our defined objectives ?
What after that ?
What's the end game ?
What do we do when this escalates ?

All honest questions .


You forgot one - What are repercussions that would take place if Assad is allowed to get away with a chemical attack, using SARIN GAS ??

Nickdfresh
09-01-2013, 01:53 PM
I don't think Colin was lying purposely either...

He knew the evidence was shit. He may have believed that Saddam had WMD's, but he certainly knew the actual evidence he was handed was completely contrived horseshit...

vandeleur
09-01-2013, 01:53 PM
I agree and there in lies the rub .

Nickdfresh
09-01-2013, 01:59 PM
I'm very torn on this. Assad is a cunt that deserves to be ass-raped by a Tomahawk cruise missile. But...

sadaist
09-01-2013, 02:59 PM
You forgot one - What are repercussions that would take place if Assad is allowed to get away with a chemical attack, using SARIN GAS ??



Quite the quagmire we face. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Can't we just kill Assad? I bet my life we got CIA guys already deeply entrenched there. One shot to the temple. Or 50 Tomahawks up his ass. But knocking out a few of his installations, which he has plenty of time to move shit to safety with the 20 day delay Obama is handing him, isn't gonna hurt him all that much. Just piss him off.

Funny thing about the Sarin that John Kerry says they used. The UN inspectors that came back hadn't even started their testing when he said that.

sadaist
09-01-2013, 03:00 PM
I'm very torn on this. Assad is a cunt that deserves to be ass-raped by a Tomahawk cruise missile. But...



But we are & should be gun-shy after the 12 years we have been through.

Nickdfresh
09-01-2013, 03:07 PM
Quite the quagmire we face. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Can't we just kill Assad? I bet my life we got CIA guys already deeply entrenched there. One shot to the temple. Or 50 Tomahawks up his ass. But knocking out a few of his installations, which he has plenty of time to move shit to safety with the 20 day delay Obama is handing him, isn't gonna hurt him all that much. Just piss him off.

Funny thing about the Sarin that John Kerry says they used. The UN inspectors that came back hadn't even started their testing when he said that.

If it were that easy, we'd of had Saddam within the first 48 hours...

sadaist
09-01-2013, 03:12 PM
If it were that easy, we'd of had Saddam within the first 48 hours...

Shock and awe.

:(

I will admit I watched that & was excited about the good ole US of A kicking some ass like in a movie. I'm over it.

Va Beach VH Fan
09-01-2013, 04:53 PM
I'm very torn on this. Assad is a cunt that deserves to be ass-raped by a Tomahawk cruise missile. But...

I certainly am too, I don't want anyone to misconstrue my comments to mean that I WISH the attack to take place....

But as you say, BUT............

Seshmeister
09-01-2013, 05:51 PM
If it were that easy, we'd of had Saddam within the first 48 hours...

The story we were given was that they nearly did...

Nickdfresh
09-02-2013, 07:45 AM
The story we were given was that they nearly did...

Who knows? Then again, who knew they'd find the fucker hiding in a spider hole stocked with Mounds Almond Joy bars?

FORD
09-02-2013, 10:28 AM
Who knows? Then again, who knew they'd find the fucker hiding in a spider hole stocked with Mounds Almond Joy bars?

I thought it was Doritos?

Nickdfresh
09-02-2013, 11:55 AM
I think he had a lot of junk food, I think that was in prison though, after. It was part of the ill-conceived Doritos celebrity enforcement:

http://www.maddogblog.com/images/yum-saddam.jpg

sadaist
09-02-2013, 12:05 PM
Who knows? Then again, who knew they'd find the fucker hiding in a spider hole stocked with Mounds Almond Joy bars?


A part of me felt pity for the man being pulled from that hole. He looked like a tangled rat living in a dirt hole. Pride. That's what got him. Didn't Bush give him like 72 hours to resign & leave Iraq? He could have gone to some island somewhere and enjoyed another 25 years of the rich life. I don't understand why these dictators don't do that. The power is too intoxicating I suppose. But it never never never ends well for them. Never.

Seshmeister
09-02-2013, 12:48 PM
I thought it was Doritos?

Top tip - you can use Doritos as an excellent kindling to start a fire.

Seshmeister
09-02-2013, 12:50 PM
A part of me felt pity for the man being pulled from that hole. He looked like a tangled rat living in a dirt hole. Pride. That's what got him. Didn't Bush give him like 72 hours to resign & leave Iraq? He could have gone to some island somewhere and enjoyed another 25 years of the rich life. I don't understand why these dictators don't do that. The power is too intoxicating I suppose. But it never never never ends well for them. Never.

If you keep shooting your advisers they start telling you what they think you want to hear which means guys like Saddam end up with a very false view of what's going on in the world - kind of like ELVIS and Alex Jones... :)

Nickdfresh
09-02-2013, 01:42 PM
If you keep shooting your advisers they start telling you what they think you want to hear which means guys like Saddam end up with a very false view of what's going on in the world - kind of like ELVIS and Alex Jones... :)

Elvis shot his pastor? :confused1:

Nickdfresh
09-02-2013, 01:45 PM
Top tip - you can use Doritos as an excellent kindling to start a fire.

Yeah. A DELICIOUS fire!

Dr. Love
09-02-2013, 03:08 PM
Elvis shot his pastor? :confused1:

but he did not shoot the deputy

Dr. Love
09-02-2013, 03:10 PM
It's hard to trust our government to tell the truth when they've been caught out in so many lies over the last decade. If Obama really wants to go after syria, present the facts and be prepared for a lot of skepticism and scrutiny.

I just have this strong recollection of him campaigning hard on being against a pointless war... and now it seems like the same old song and dance all over again.

Kristy
09-02-2013, 03:40 PM
A Libertardian would shoot the deputy and then blame it on a poor person.

envy_me
09-02-2013, 04:06 PM
It's hard to trust our government to tell the truth when they've been caught out in so many lies over the last decade. If Obama really wants to go after syria, present the facts and be prepared for a lot of skepticism and scrutiny.

I just have this strong recollection of him campaigning hard on being against a pointless war... and now it seems like the same old song and dance all over again.


You know, if Obama could attach your siggy to all his documents there would be no war cause nobody would read them. Let alone get to signing them.
I am not a lesbian, but I just can't focus on reading your posts :D

Dr. Love
09-02-2013, 06:05 PM
http://i.imgur.com/m1uQuoR.png

Nickdfresh
09-03-2013, 06:16 AM
We're not sending large ground units into Syria like we did in Iraq and The Afghan War. And we failed, or at least fucked ourselves in Afghanistan to an extent because we didn't deploy enough there early on because we were saving up for Iraq. Silly, simpleton cartoon...

Dr. Love
09-03-2013, 11:22 AM
of course ... but that doesn't mean you can't laugh at a joke :)

FORD
09-03-2013, 12:32 PM
Even the websites who usually go out of their way to kiss Obama's ass are not down with this Syria bullshit.......

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2013/130903-to-strike-or-not-to-strike-syria.jpg

FORD
09-03-2013, 12:41 PM
3 Sep

This was in the New York Times last night:

Administration officials said the influential pro-Israel lobby group Aipac was already at work pressing for military action against the government of Mr. Assad, fearing that if Syria escapes American retribution for its use of chemical weapons, Iran might be emboldened in the future to attack Israel. In the House, the majority leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, has long worked to challenge Democrats’ traditional base among Jews.

One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called Aipac “the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” and said its allies in Congress had to be saying, “If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line” against the catastrophic use of chemical weapons, “we’re in trouble.”

It was originally in this story (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/world/middleeast/syria.html). Now it’s gone. Its only remnant is in the Times search engine. If you put in “gorilla,” it points you to this story. But the gorilla ain’t there.

Obviously the White House and/or AIPAC did not want to be caught saying that the reason we are attacking Syria is to show AIPAC, the “800 pound gorilla,” that we are serious about the war the lobby really craves: Iran.

But there it is. Or was.

AIPAC censorship even applies to the Times. Only in America (not Israel, where AIPAC’s power does not extend to Haaretz).


...and before anybody wants to call this "anti-semitic" to accuse AIPAC of censoring the NY Times, you should probably know a guy named Rosenberg wrote this (http://mjayrosenberg.com/2013/09/03/new-york-times-deletes-this-paragraph-in-which-white-house-says-aipac-is-key-to-war/).....

Va Beach VH Fan
09-03-2013, 12:47 PM
Well, now McCain, Graham AND Boehner are all onboard with the strike.....


Drop your cocks and grab your socks....

FORD
09-03-2013, 12:53 PM
McCain and Miss Lindsey never met a war they didn't like. And Cantor probably told Boner if he didn't back this one, he would take the mini-bar out of his desk. :guzzle:

FORD
09-03-2013, 01:25 PM
By Charles P. Pierce

Let me be more precise. Just shut your fucking piehole. Forever. You useless walking, bloodstained pile of casual death.

Lieberman said that he would urge lawmakers -- including his "amigos," Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) -- to approve an action in Syria. "I'm sure that our enemies are cheering now as a result of this decision because they realize it's not clear the president will get authority, and our allies are worried," he concluded. "That's why, again, this resolution or something like it has to pass Congress."

Let us be clear. There is no blazing, murderous maw into which Joe Lieberman would not be willing to feed someone else's child. There is no fiery death from above that he is not willing to inflict upon children in a distant land. The man could care less about the dead. He'd feed on them himself, if he could.

Fuck him with a Hellfire.

Now that my throat's clear, let's start the day.



http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/joe-lieberman-syria-090213
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/lieberman-our-enemies-are-cheering-after-oba

FORD
09-03-2013, 01:33 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewWahhamq8I

http://dontattacksyria.com/

sadaist
09-03-2013, 01:38 PM
That tool Grayson is back? I thought we got rid of his useless look-at-me attention whore ass. He cares more about making waves on the news shows than anything else. Just like Weiner before him. We need actual representatives of the people...not celebrity wannabes.

FORD
09-03-2013, 01:55 PM
I mentioned this before, but it's good to see a "mainstream news source" cover the story. And as usual, it's NOT a US mainstream news source.......


Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern

Massacres of civilians are being exploited for narrow geopolitical competition to control Mideast oil, gas pipelines


On 21 August, hundreds - perhaps over a thousand - people were killed in a chemical weapon attack in Ghouta, Damascus, prompting the US, UK, Israel and France to raise the spectre of military strikes against Bashir al Assad's forces.

The latest episode is merely one more horrific event in a conflict that has increasingly taken on genocidal characteristics. The case for action at first glance is indisputable. The UN now confirms a death toll over 100,000 people, the vast majority of whom have been killed by Assad's troops. An estimated 4.5 million people have been displaced from their homes. International observers have overwhelmingly confirmed Assad's complicity in the preponderance of war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Syrian people. The illegitimacy of his regime, and the legitimacy of the uprising, is clear.

Experts are unanimous that the shocking footage of civilians, including children, suffering the effects of some sort of chemical attack, is real - but remain divided on whether it involved military-grade chemical weapons associated with Assad's arsenal, or were a more amateur concoction potentially linked to the rebels.

Whatever the case, few recall that US agitation against Syria began long before recent atrocities, in the context of wider operations targeting Iranian influence across the Middle East.

In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had "cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations" intended to weaken the Shi'ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. "The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." He noted that "the Saudi government, with Washington's approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria," with a view to pressure him to be "more conciliatory and open to negotiations" with Israel. One faction receiving covert US "political and financial support" through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."

The 2011 uprisings, it would seem - triggered by a confluence of domestic energy shortages and climate-induced droughts which led to massive food price hikes - came at an opportune moment that was quickly exploited. Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."

So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

Much of the strategy currently at play was candidly described in a 2008 US Army-funded RAND report, Unfolding the Future of the Long War (pdf). The report noted that "the economies of the industrialized states will continue to rely heavily on oil, thus making it a strategically important resource." As most oil will be produced in the Middle East, the US has "motive for maintaining stability in and good relations with Middle Eastern states":

"The geographic area of proven oil reserves coincides with the power base of much of the Salafi-jihadist network. This creates a linkage between oil supplies and the long war that is not easily broken or simply characterized... For the foreseeable future, world oil production growth and total output will be dominated by Persian Gulf resources... The region will therefore remain a strategic priority, and this priority will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war."

In this context, the report identified several potential trajectories for regional policy focused on protecting access to Gulf oil supplies, among which the following are most salient:

"Divide and Rule focuses on exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts. This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations (IO), unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces... the United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch proxy IO campaigns to discredit the transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace... US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the 'Sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict' trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran."

Exploring different scenarios for this trajectory, the report speculated that the US may concentrate "on shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan as a way of containing Iranian power and influence in the Middle East and Persian Gulf." Noting that this could actually empower al-Qaeda jihadists, the report concluded that doing so might work in western interests by bogging down jihadi activity with internal sectarian rivalry rather than targeting the US:

"One of the oddities of this long war trajectory is that it may actually reduce the al-Qaeda threat to US interests in the short term. The upsurge in Shia identity and confidence seen here would certainly cause serious concern in the Salafi-jihadist community in the Muslim world, including the senior leadership of al-Qaeda. As a result, it is very likely that al-Qaeda might focus its efforts on targeting Iranian interests throughout the Middle East and Persian Gulf while simultaneously cutting back on anti-American and anti-Western operations."

The RAND document contextualised this disturbing strategy with surprisingly prescient recognition of the increasing vulnerability of the US's key allies and enemies - Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Egypt, Syria, Iran - to a range of converging crises: rapidly rising populations, a 'youth bulge', internal economic inequalities, political frustrations, sectarian tensions, and environmentally-linked water shortages, all of which could destabilise these countries from within or exacerbate inter-state conflicts.

The report noted especially that Syria is among several "downstream countries that are becoming increasingly water scarce as their populations grow", increasing a risk of conflict. Thus, although the RAND document fell far short of recognising the prospect of an 'Arab Spring', it illustrates that three years before the 2011 uprisings, US defence officials were alive to the region's growing instabilities, and concerned by the potential consequences for stability of Gulf oil.

These strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics. In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

It would seem that contradictory self-serving Saudi and Qatari oil interests are pulling the strings of an equally self-serving oil-focused US policy in Syria, if not the wider region. It is this - the problem of establishing a pliable opposition which the US and its oil allies feel confident will play ball, pipeline-style, in a post-Assad Syria - that will determine the nature of any prospective intervention: not concern for Syrian life.

What is beyond doubt is that Assad is a war criminal whose government deserves to be overthrown. The question is by whom, and for what interests?

Dr Nafeez Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And How to Save It among other books. Follow him on Twitter @nafeezahmed

Link (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines/print)

FORD
09-03-2013, 02:52 PM
https://sphotos-b-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s526x395/1185912_651222631563095_881097310_n.jpg

FORD
09-03-2013, 04:00 PM
Apparently now Judas IsKerryot is channeling George Orwell. He says that bombing the fucking shit out of Syria is NOT "going to war".

Really Judas? Guess you're not a war veteran then, because by that definition, we were never at "war" with Vietnam.

Better turn in those 3 purple hearts, Judas.......

tbone888
09-03-2013, 04:29 PM
Obama sending it to congress for approval (all the while saying their decision wont keep him from striking) is purely political looking towards 2014. I can't blame him. I would do the same thing. If the shit hits the fan, he can just blame congress.

FORD
09-03-2013, 04:33 PM
How the Hell is that going to help him in 2014?

If the "Democrats" in Congress don't put a stop to this bullshit (as the Constitution demands they do) then they will lose votes in 2014, and deservedly so. Problem there is that the teabaggers don't deserve the votes either.

Green party Congressional landslide 2014!!

FORD
09-03-2013, 05:00 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr4cDN0xx88#t=134

FORD
09-03-2013, 05:07 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiTdcD1uX3E

FORD
09-03-2013, 05:17 PM
That tool Grayson is back? I thought we got rid of his useless look-at-me attention whore ass. He cares more about making waves on the news shows than anything else. Just like Weiner before him. We need actual representatives of the people...not celebrity wannabes.

Alan Grayson HAS consistently been a representative of the people. So was Weiner - apart from representing a little too much of himself via Twitter, unfortunately.

What's even better here is that Grayson's one flaw, previously, is that he did take the pro-AIPAC positions on some previous things, like Israel's unprovoked assault on Lebanon in 2006, so it's good to see he's not drinking the NuttyYahoo Kool-Aid this time around. I'm also reasonably certain that Bernie Sanders isn't buying this bullshit either.

tbone888
09-03-2013, 05:25 PM
No question the dems would lose votes in 14 if they approve a strike, but imo, they would lose more from a rogue president thumbing his nose at congress and the constitution....esp if such a strike went bad.

FORD
09-03-2013, 05:35 PM
No question the dems would lose votes in 14 if they approve a strike, but imo, they would lose more from a rogue president thumbing his nose at congress and the constitution....esp if such a strike went bad.

IF it went bad?

Like the above graphic from Democratic Underground suggests, there's no possible way it can go "good".

But yeah, I totally agree that Barry is pretty much handing the Senate to the KKKoch Brothers and guaranteeing they keep the House if he goes through with this madness. :(

Nickdfresh
09-03-2013, 07:53 PM
I'm very conflicted by all this. There is some skepticism regarding the U.S. investigation and rush to judgement. I don't think anyone serious denies the Syrian gov't used chems on their people. But I guess the French say the number of victims is more like under 300 and many are questioning the 1,400 figure the Admin has put forth...

FORD
09-03-2013, 09:47 PM
Israel Grants First Golan Heights Oil Drilling License To Dick Cheney-Linked Company
By Michael Kelley
Global Research, September 02, 2013
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/srael-grants-first-golan-heights-oil-drilling-license-to-dick-cheney-linked-company/5347779)

Israel has granted a U.S. company the first license to explore for oil and gas in the occupied Golan Heights, John Reed of the Financial Times reports.

A local subsidiary of the New York-listed company Genie Energy — which is advised by former vice president Dick Cheney and whose shareholders include Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch — will now have exclusive rights to a 153-square mile radius in the southern part of the Golan Heights.

That geographic location will likely prove controversial. Israel seized the Golan Heights in the Six-Day War in 1967 and annexed the territory in 1981. Its administration of the area — which is not recognized by international law — has been mostly peaceful until the Syrian civil war broke out 23 months ago.

“This action is mostly political – it’s an attempt to deepen Israeli commitment to the occupied Golan Heights,” Israeli political analyst Yaron Ezrahi told FT. “The timing is directly related to the fact that the Syrian government is dealing with violence and chaos and is not free to deal with this problem.”

There are about 20,000 Israeli settlers in the Golan Heights.

Earlier this month we reported that Israel is considering creating a buffer zone reaching up to 10 miles from Golan into Syria to secure the 47-mile border against the threat of Islamic radicals in the area.

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5127c6c369bedd7a1c00000b-800-684/golan.jpg

The move would overtake the UN Disengagement Observer Force Zone that was established in 1973 to end the Yom Kippur War and to provide a buffer zone between the two countries.

Reed notes that recent natural gas finds off Israel’s coast in the Mediterranean have made the country’s offshore gas reserve one of the largest of its kind in the world, meaning Israel may become a significant energy exporter in its region.

FORD
09-04-2013, 12:00 AM
http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article2246833.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/CHECK-USAGE-John-Kerry-President-Assad-dinner-2009-2246833.jpg



By Ben Rankin
Comments

Syria: Bashar al-Assad and John Kerry pictured on double date in Damascus restaurant
3 Sep 2013 08:55

The US Secretary of State was leading a peace delegation to the city at the time

The Syrian president is an unsavoury character, says US Secretary of State John Kerry.

But this image shows a double date in Damascus in 2009 in which he appears more to his taste.

The then Massachusetts Governor, who has compared the leader to Adolf Hitler, was pictured in a restaurant with Bashar al-Assad and their wives as he led a peace delegation to the city.

The photo emerged just days after Mr Kerry unveiled “compelling” evidence that Assad’s forces had carried out a chemical attack in a rebel-held area of Damascus.

And he said the US had hair and blood samples proving sarin was used.

Mr Kerry told CNN: “Blood and hair samples that have come to us through an appropriate chain of custody from Damascus, from first responders, tested positive for signatures of Sarin.”

Assad blames rebels for the gas attack.

sadaist
09-04-2013, 12:14 AM
Assad blames rebels for the gas attack.


Me too. He had nothing to gain, was already winning, and stood to lose everything if he used them.

sadaist
09-04-2013, 12:15 AM
sorry guys. my eyes are wigging out tonight and hard to see. but syria has a large amount of lithium. follow the money?

FORD
09-04-2013, 12:19 AM
The fact is, Judas & Barry have no goddamn idea who launched the gas.

Could have been ASSad
Could have been the rebels
Could have been elements within the Syrian government who hate ASSad and want him gone
Could have been Mossad/BCE/CIA false flag operations (I'll leave it up to Elvis to post the Alex Jones theory)

All said though, ASSad actually seems like the least likely suspect, for obvious reasons. He doesn't want to go out like Saddam or Gadaffy.

FORD
09-04-2013, 12:27 AM
sorry guys. my eyes are wigging out tonight and hard to see. but syria has a large amount of lithium. follow the money?

I did not know that, but I'm not surprised, since it's also true of other countries in the region. Not the least of which is Afghanistan.

So add the lithium to the natural gas pipelines and the possible oil in the Golan Heights, and it seems like a whole lot of money to be made and resources to be stolen there...........

Seshmeister
09-04-2013, 04:52 AM
http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article2246833.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/CHECK-USAGE-John-Kerry-President-Assad-dinner-2009-2246833.jpg



By Ben Rankin
Comments

Syria: Bashar al-Assad and John Kerry pictured on double date in Damascus restaurant
3 Sep 2013 08:55

The US Secretary of State was leading a peace delegation to the city at the time

The Syrian president is an unsavoury character, says US Secretary of State John Kerry.

But this image shows a double date in Damascus in 2009 in which he appears more to his taste.

The then Massachusetts Governor, who has compared the leader to Adolf Hitler, was pictured in a restaurant with Bashar al-Assad and their wives as he led a peace delegation to the city.

The photo emerged just days after Mr Kerry unveiled “compelling” evidence that Assad’s forces had carried out a chemical attack in a rebel-held area of Damascus.

And he said the US had hair and blood samples proving sarin was used.

Mr Kerry told CNN: “Blood and hair samples that have come to us through an appropriate chain of custody from Damascus, from first responders, tested positive for signatures of Sarin.”

Assad blames rebels for the gas attack.

I really don't see anything wrong with that, in fact it puts him in a better position to call Assad a thug or like Hitler.

It's good to meet the other guy even if only to see if they are how you think they are.

How many fights on here over the years would that have stopped?

You know the history better than me but I can't think of many if any fights between posters who had previously met in real life.

Nickdfresh
09-04-2013, 06:30 AM
http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article2246833.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/CHECK-USAGE-John-Kerry-President-Assad-dinner-2009-2246833.jpg



By Ben Rankin
Comments

Syria: Bashar al-Assad and John Kerry pictured on double date in Damascus restaurant
3 Sep 2013 08:55

The US Secretary of State was leading a peace delegation to the city at the time

The Syrian president is an unsavoury character, says US Secretary of State John Kerry.

But this image shows a double date in Damascus in 2009 in which he appears more to his taste.

The then Massachusetts Governor, who has compared the leader to Adolf Hitler, was pictured in a restaurant with Bashar al-Assad and their wives as he led a peace delegation to the city.

The photo emerged just days after Mr Kerry unveiled “compelling” evidence that Assad’s forces had carried out a chemical attack in a rebel-held area of Damascus.

And he said the US had hair and blood samples proving sarin was used.

Mr Kerry told CNN: “Blood and hair samples that have come to us through an appropriate chain of custody from Damascus, from first responders, tested positive for signatures of Sarin.”

Assad blames rebels for the gas attack.

Well, that's a bit of a "gotcha" photo, Ford. Firstly, U.S. diplomats also met Hitler, before WWII. Secondly, there were signs back in the late 2000's that Assad was pushing for liberalization of the Syrian political system and for a greater openness. No one saw the savage crackdown coming a few years later...

Nickdfresh
09-04-2013, 06:43 AM
sorry guys. my eyes are wigging out tonight and hard to see. but syria has a large amount of lithium. follow the money?


They've also had a lot of killing going on now for over three years. And this is probably at least the third rebellion against the Assad dynasty, one of the previous bloodier ones took place in the 1980's with Assads dad, Kim Il Assad, using heavy artillery on civilians in one of the major cities that is the epicenter of the current revolt

I think trying to distill everything down to money/oil pipelines/Hello Kitty collections is a bit silly at this point. They've been killing each other for years, only this time the insurrection is far more effective due to the historical circumstances and the ease of access to weapons. The real reason isn't the fucking same old "pipeline" story - it's that Syria is a multinational single state --not a nation-state was we know it!-- that was cobbled together by the British, who always managed to fuck things up in their colonial history, and inevitably leads to conflicts and civil wars. Did the Hutus want to slaughter all of the Tutsis in Rwanda over an oil pipeline? Did Nazi Germany and their allies want to kill all the Jews for gold in their teeth? You guys are way too logical and I would say naive and looking for a logical, rational reason for the slaughter, because that would actually comfort you if there were some unseen hand orchestrating the violence for some higher purpose --no matter how nefarious. My friends, there is no rationality here - they are killing each other over power and control and decades of sheer hatred and loathing of the "other". Nothing else...

vandeleur
09-04-2013, 07:59 AM
I apologise to nick on behalf of the previous British empire for being a bit crap .
Though I will add this most nations are built up of multi ethnic/multi states or groups and manage to live on the whole in peace .
Fuck knows why civilisation throws up these murdering fuck heads who become state heads .
But at the end of the day it's not history or geography or any thing else that is responsible for the Syrian crisis but the cunts in the Assad regime . To give other reasons for these atrocities deflects blame from the evil men who have done these things.

FORD
09-04-2013, 02:12 PM
So Judas IsKerryot doesn't think what he and Barry are planning to do to Syria qualifies as "war"?

I know somebody who would disagree with you, Judas........


"We veterans can only look with amazement on the fact that this country has been unable to see there is absolutely no difference between ground troops and a helicopter crew, and yet people have accepted a differentiation fed them by the administration. No ground troops are in Laos, so it is all right to kill Laotians by remote control. But believe me the helicopter crews fill the same body bags and they wreak the same kind of damage on the Vietnamese and Laotian countryside as anybody else and the President is talking about allowing this to go on for many years to come. One can only ask if we will really be satisfied only when the troops march into Hanoi."

- John Kerry, 22 April 1971

Maybe Secretary IsKerryot needs to talk to this guy? :(

baru911
09-04-2013, 04:22 PM
You have bad guys on both sides of a civil war killing one another. Letting them finish what they started might be a better solution to the situation. Just when you thought we might be getting out of the neighborhood...oh, well.

ODShowtime
09-04-2013, 07:12 PM
I read that bashar's younger brother maher is a hothead. He runs state security and was leading the elite government forces to destroy the rebellion. He lost an arm and a leg to a rebel bombing last July.

One would think he'd have access to the chemical arms. Maybe he just did it out of revenge?

Of course the oldest brother was going to take the helm in Syria before he died in a car accident in 94, so they had to get the weird middle brother who was an eye doctor.

The assad story is really not very far at all from the Godfather. They're just a bunch of gangsters. This maher guy profited off the oil-for-food program in Iraq through his Lebanese banking connections and most likely lots of other human suffering as well. Bummer about your leg dude.

fraroc
09-04-2013, 08:53 PM
This seems like 2003 all over again, we're going to invade Syria, more troops are going to be depoloyed, so many Syrian civilians are going to die by our hand, more military families are going to lose sons, daughters, mothers and fathers and for what? The government can't use the "this is a war on terrorism" excuse anymore, not a lot of Americans are gonna buy it.

This is sadly another case of Land+Money=Power

FORD
09-04-2013, 08:53 PM
http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2013/09/04/17/32/1iqQTz.St.81.jpg

FORD
09-04-2013, 09:07 PM
AIPAC Endorses War With Syria, Will Help Obama Lobby Congress
By: DSWright Wednesday September 4, 2013 7:23 am (http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/09/04/aipac-endorses-war-with-syria-will-help-obama-lobby-congress/)


Pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC has decided to endorse President Obama’s military attack on Syria apparently unconcerned about a wider war threatening Israeli interests. According to AIPAC’s statement, part of the motivation for support are concerns over Iran developing a nuclear weapon.

AIPAC’s all in on Syria. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the nation’s primary pro-Israel lobbying group, has broken its silence on Syria, calling for members of Congress to vote in favor of a resolution giving President Barack Obama express authority to launch strikes against President Bashar Assad’s regime…

“America’s allies and adversaries are closely watching the outcome of this momentous vote. This critical decision comes at a time when Iran is racing toward obtaining nuclear capability,” AIPAC wrote. “Failure to approve this resolution would weaken our country’s credibility to prevent the use and proliferation of unconventional weapons and thereby greatly endanger our country’s security and interests and those of our regional allies.”


So war with Syria opens the door to war with Iran? Are some people counting on these “limited” strikes leading to a wider war?

Those concerned about Israel’s security should also consider what those fighting Assad think about Israel. Free Syrian Army Chief of Staff Salim Idris, for instance – that’s the rebel group not directly linked to Al Qaeda – said “Israel Is an Enemy Country.” The rebels both Al Qaeda and non Al Qaeda like the SFA led by Idris will be the chief beneficiaries of any weakening of Assad.

Salim Idris: As for us being Israeli collaborators – the only Israeli collaborator in the region is the criminal Bashar. The Israeli collaborators are the people who put on the show of the 2006 war – Hizbullah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah. They diverted all their forces to the slaughtering of Syrians. Their scheme is totally clear. They used to hide behind the pretext of resistance and the fight against Israel, but now it has become clear that they are implementing a sectarian, Iranian, Safavid plan in the region.


Israel is an enemy country. I say this loud and clear. It occupies Syrian lands. The FSA will not change its position regarding that country before [Israel] withdraws from the Syrian lands, and recognizes the legitimate rights of the Arab Palestinian people. [Then] we will abide by the decision of the Arab people of Syria.

Of course if America does launch a unilateral strike against Syria for alleged chemical weapons use, it will be pretty hard to tell the Israelis not to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. In any case, this is a very dangerous game to be playing.

Seshmeister
09-04-2013, 09:13 PM
AIPAC Endorses War With Syria, Will Help Obama Lobby Congress
By: DSWright Wednesday September 4, 2013 7:23 am (http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/09/04/aipac-endorses-war-with-syria-will-help-obama-lobby-congress/)


Pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC has decided to endorse President Obama’s military attack on Syria apparently unconcerned about a wider war threatening Israeli interests. According to AIPAC’s statement, part of the motivation for support are concerns over Iran developing a nuclear weapon.



There's a fucking surprise.

FORD
09-04-2013, 09:14 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again....

The biggest terrorist threat in the middle east is this lying murdering motherfucking piece of shit...

http://thetruthisnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/netanyahu_benyamin.jpg

He likes to call everyone else "Hitler", but he's the lunatic cocksucker who wants World War III. And I'm goddamned sick of his PNAC/AIPAC treasonous agents fucking up MY country.

Somebody needs to do to this bastard what he did to Rabin. Because he actually deserves it. :gun:

DLR Bridge
09-04-2013, 09:43 PM
I think it was in the Richard Engel book, A Fist In The Hornets Nest, where I read that a lot of early Iraq war U.S. casualties were from Syrians on the border who were chomping at the bit to proudly partake in killing westerners. The soldiers new they were Syrian because of their "westerner attire". Go fucking figure. It is too bad about those senselessly killed civilians, but we're talking about another country that pretty much fucking hates us and has for some time. I hope like hell we don't waste a dollar (that we don't have) on this cause. I mean, it would be like a wildlife cameraman dropping his camera to grab the baby gazelle out of a lions mouth. That can't end good.

FORD
09-05-2013, 03:05 AM
http://userimages-akm.imvu.com/userdata/19/42/41/98/userpics/Snap_2OqCWLLpwc2089818949.jpg

....and Judas IsKerryot says nobody's planning a war? Riiiiiiiiight............

Seshmeister
09-05-2013, 04:19 AM
Two US carrier groups is $120 billion or to put that in proportion the cost of an entire free healthcare system for the UK.

There are some very rich people that money goes to who worry that if these things lie around not being used, one day someone will say 'do we really need to keep buying all this shit?'. These people spend a lot of money in Washington...

Seshmeister
09-05-2013, 04:26 AM
Obama drew a line in the sand and said that the only way the US would get involved would be if chemical weapons were involved.

It seems suspicious that then when the rebels were getting beaten chemical weapons were used...

vandeleur
09-05-2013, 05:52 AM
There is no way when this escalates will British forces not be involved its inconceivable , I am just waiting to see what Machiavellian plot Cameron needs to use to get it to happen.
It's killing the British govt not to be at the top table at the g20 .

Seshmeister
09-05-2013, 06:21 AM
I would have thought the US will want use of Cyprus.

Va Beach VH Fan
09-05-2013, 10:06 AM
I love this lesbian.....

<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc4fded1" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=52922413&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc4fded1" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=52922413&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>

Kristy
09-05-2013, 10:35 AM
Holy crap! Otardma is aging fast. What is he now, 52 going on 61?

FORD
09-05-2013, 11:10 AM
The Daily Show with Jon StewartGet More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook

sadaist
09-05-2013, 11:13 AM
Obama drew a line in the sand and said that the only way the US would get involved would be if chemical weapons were involved.

It seems suspicious that then when the rebels were getting beaten chemical weapons were used...



And at the very time inspectors were there to witness it.

And hadn't been used before or since.

Suspicious indeed.

Baby's On Fire
09-05-2013, 12:54 PM
Act tough? Bail him out?

That couldn't be further from the truth....

He's "acting tough" because he wants to take action for a chemical attack that killed not only 1400 people but over 400 children ??

You know, I didn't want to go down this road, but fuck it....

If this happened during a Bush or Reagan administration, right wingers in Congress would be lapping this shit up.... Everyone knows it.....


How many innocent people did the United States murder during the illegal war against Iraq? Including innocent women and children. And how many more murders via cowardly drone strikes?

Now the United States is trumpeting morality over the alleged death of children by chemical weapons alleged to have been used by Assad? And with no proof of it having been Assad whatsoever.

Why can't the USA just STAY THE FUCK OUT OF other countries? No wonder why most of the World cannot fucking stand the USA anymore. It's become a terrorist state.

FORD
09-05-2013, 02:49 PM
Associated Press
21 hours ago

MOSCOW (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday called U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry a liar, claiming he had denied that al-Qaida was fighting with the Syrian opposition in that country's civil war.

Speaking to his human rights council, Putin recalled watching a congressional debate where Kerry was asked about al-Qaida. Putin said he had denied that it was operating in Syria, even though he was aware of the al-Qaida-linked Jabhat al-Nusra group.

Putin said: "This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them (the Americans) and we assume they are decent people, but he is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad."

It was unclear exactly what Putin was referencing, but Kerry was asked Tuesday while testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee if the Syrian opposition had become more infiltrated by al-Qaida.

Kerry responded that that was "basically incorrect" and that the opposition has "increasingly become more defined by its moderation."

When asked if a strike would make al-Nusra and other extremist forces stronger, Kerry responded, "No, I don't believe you do (make them stronger). As a matter of fact, I think you actually make the opposition stronger. And the opposition is getting stronger by the day now."

In testimony Wednesday, Kerry said that he didn't agree that "a majority (of the opposition) are al- Qaida and the bad guys." Extremists amount to 15 to 25 percent of the opposition, he said, including al-Nusra and many other groups that are "fighting each other, even now."

Putin also repeated Russia's position that any use of military force against Syria without the approval of the U.N. Security Council would be an act of aggression.

FORD
09-05-2013, 03:53 PM
....and Judas gives very weak, pathetic non-answers.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR0NlgQUIds#t=92

Hagel's kinda dodgy too, but what would you expect from a guy who used to run an electro-fraud machine company?

sadaist
09-05-2013, 04:25 PM
Why is it that Assad can blow up people to bits with one type of weapon, but can't kill them with a different type? Same result. Dead people. The chemical weapon thing if you think about it is kinda stupid. No no, you can't choke these people to death. Only burn them or blow them up. WTF? If it was your child that was killed would you really fucking care how? No. You'd just want revenge.

Nickdfresh
09-05-2013, 04:37 PM
Associated Press
21 hours ago

MOSCOW (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday called U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry a liar, claiming he had denied that al-Qaida was fighting with the Syrian opposition in that country's civil war.
...

http://amerinfidel.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/pot-kettle.jpg

Putin is consistent on one thing though. The people his government killed with chemical weapons are the hostages they're suppose to rescue...

baru911
09-05-2013, 04:56 PM
It is funny that President Ego is pushing so hard for military intervention and will even make a direct appeal via an Oval Office speech. It appears he has to get his message out and a Congressional vote before the Russians release their 100 page UN report on the sarin gas attack in the Aleppo suburb that occurred on March 19. The report will show the rebels launched chemical weapons and not the Syrian government forces.

It would appear that both sides have the capabilities to launch chemical attacks. As of late the Syrian forces have been winning this conflict and have nothing to gain by using the weapons. The rebels have everything to gain if they can get the world to take notice and get behind them.

Kind of makes you wonder.

FORD
09-05-2013, 04:59 PM
Told ya you should have voted for Rocky Anderson! :biggrin:

FORD
09-05-2013, 06:01 PM
http://o.onionstatic.com/images/23/23389/original/700.jpg?7667
A majority of U.S. citizens believe congressional leaders in both the House and Senate must be sent to war-torn Syria immediately.

WASHINGTON—As President Obama continues to push for a plan of limited military intervention in Syria, a new poll of Americans has found that though the nation remains wary over the prospect of becoming involved in another Middle Eastern war, the vast majority of U.S. citizens strongly approve of sending Congress to Syria.

The New York Times/CBS News poll showed that though just 1 in 4 Americans believe that the United States has a responsibility to intervene in the Syrian conflict, more than 90 percent of the public is convinced that putting all 535 representatives of the United States Congress on the ground in Syria—including Senate pro tempore Patrick Leahy, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and, in fact, all current members of the House and Senate—is the best course of action at this time.

“I believe it is in the best interest of the United States, and the global community as a whole, to move forward with the deployment of all U.S. congressional leaders to Syria immediately,” respondent Carol Abare, 50, said in the nationwide telephone survey, echoing the thoughts of an estimated 9 in 10 Americans who said they “strongly support” any plan of action that involves putting the U.S. House and Senate on the ground in the war-torn Middle Eastern state. “With violence intensifying every day, now is absolutely the right moment—the perfect moment, really—for the United States to send our legislators to the region.”

“In fact, my preference would have been for Congress to be deployed months ago,” she added.

Citing overwhelming support from the international community—including that of the Arab League, Turkey, and France, as well as Great Britain, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Japan, Mexico, China, and Canada, all of whom are reported to be unilaterally in favor of sending the U.S. Congress to Syria—the majority of survey respondents said they believe the United States should refocus its entire approach to Syria’s civil war on the ground deployment of U.S. senators and representatives, regardless of whether the Assad regime used chemical weapons or not.

In fact, 91 percent of those surveyed agreed that the active use of sarin gas attacks by the Syrian government would, if anything, only increase poll respondents’ desire to send Congress to Syria.

Public opinion was essentially unchanged when survey respondents were asked about a broader range of attacks, with more than 79 percent of Americans saying they would strongly support sending Congress to Syria in cases of bomb and missile attacks, 78 percent supporting intervention in cases of kidnappings and executions, and 75 percent saying representatives should be deployed in cases where government forces were found to have used torture.

When asked if they believe that Sen. Rand Paul should be deployed to Syria, 100 percent of respondents said yes.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that sending Congress to Syria—or, at the very least, sending the major congressional leaders in both parties—is the correct course of action,” survey respondent and Iraq war veteran Maj. Gen. John Mill said, noting that his opinion was informed by four tours of duty in which he saw dozens of close friends sustain physical as well as emotional injury and post-traumatic stress. “There is a clear solution to our problems staring us right in the face here, and we need to take action.”

“Sooner rather than later, too,” Mill added. “This war isn’t going to last forever.”

Link (http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-majority-of-americans-approve-of-sending-cong,33752/)

Nickdfresh
09-05-2013, 06:16 PM
It is funny that President Ego is pushing so hard for military intervention and will even make a direct appeal via an Oval Office speech. It appears he has to get his message out and a Congressional vote before the Russians release their 100 page UN report on the sarin gas attack in the Aleppo suburb that occurred on March 19. The report will show the rebels launched chemical weapons and not the Syrian government forces.

It would appear that both sides have the capabilities to launch chemical attacks. As of late the Syrian forces have been winning this conflict and have nothing to gain by using the weapons. The rebels have everything to gain if they can get the world to take notice and get behind them.

Kind of makes you wonder.

Whether we should get involved in Syria for me is a very open question, but the Russians are full of shit on Syria and always have been and have only been too glad to provide ordnance to be used on "terrorist targets" like bread lines and orphanages...

Nickdfresh
09-05-2013, 06:20 PM
If you're looking for a well sourced documentary on Syria recorded long before any talk of U.S. intervention and speculative conspiracy fodder, watch PBS's Frontline on the subject:

From 2011, on the Assad Regime: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/syria-undercover/#b


Two soldiers on opposite sides, April 2013: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/syria-behind-the-lines/

Dr. Love
09-05-2013, 08:08 PM
watching John Kerry on Chris Hayes' show.

Did he have a stroke or something? Why does half of his face seem droopy?

FORD
09-05-2013, 08:23 PM
Rumor is he's been getting botox injections since the 2004 campaign. That's probably it.

I wouldn't wish a stroke on anybody.... not even Judas.

Seshmeister
09-05-2013, 08:24 PM
He's nearly 70.

There are too many old men running the world.

Seshmeister
09-05-2013, 08:28 PM
http://o.onionstatic.com/images/23/23389/original/700.jpg?7667


Sometimes when you see Boehner you wonder if David Icke is maybe right and these people are alien lizards wearing masks.

I can't remember ever coming across someone that looked like that in real life.



Oh no I hope he doesn't read this and start blubbing...

Nickdfresh
09-05-2013, 08:45 PM
watching John Kerry on Chris Hayes' show.

Did he have a stroke or something? Why does half of his face seem droopy?

Maybe he was just staring at your sig?

FORD
09-05-2013, 08:46 PM
I've never seen orange aliens on Star Trek. I guess the Ferengi would come the closest......

http://startrekportal.scifi.hu/cikk_images/ferengi_quark.jpg

Presumably he would have had plastic ear reduction surgery somewhere.

On the other hand, we know McConnell is reptilian, since he's a turtle. And Reid would admit to being an alien, since he considers himself a "spirit child" from the planet Kolob.

Jellyfish Pelosi? I think she's seeing the same doctor Judas is for botox shots.

Dr. Love
09-05-2013, 09:17 PM
Maybe he was just staring at your sig?

with only one extremely relaxed eye and slack right side of his face

FORD
09-05-2013, 09:18 PM
http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2013/09/04/20/46/RT8k3.St.4.PNG

FORD
09-05-2013, 09:23 PM
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/FellP/2013/FellP20130905_low.jpg

baru911
09-05-2013, 09:35 PM
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/FellP/2013/FellP20130905_low.jpg

That's the truth

baru911
09-05-2013, 09:40 PM
Russia gave UN 100-page report in July blaming Syrian rebels for Aleppo sarin attack

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/09/05/4288446/russia-releases-100-page-report.html#.Uikx-z-ZbMo#storylink=cpy

BERLIN Russia says a deadly March sarin attack in an Aleppo suburb was carried out by Syrian rebels, not forces loyal to President Bashar Assad, and it has delivered a 100-page report laying out its evidence to the United Nations.

A statement posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry website late Wednesday said the report included detailed scientific analysis of samples that Russian technicians collected at the site of the alleged attack, Khan al Asal in northern Syria. The attack killed 26 people.

A U.N. spokesman, Farhan Haq, confirmed that Russia delivered the report in July.

The report itself was not released. But the statement drew a pointed comparison between what it said was the scientific detail of the report and the far shorter intelligence summaries that the United States, Britain and France have released to justify their assertion that the Syrian government launched chemical weapons against Damascus suburbs on Aug. 21. The longest of those summaries, by the French, ran nine pages. Each relies primarily on circumstantial evidence to make its case, and they disagree with one another on some details, including the number of people who died in the attack.

The Russian statement warned the United States and its allies not to conduct a military strike against Syria until the United Nations had completed a similarly detailed scientific study into the Aug. 21 attack. It charged that what it called the current “hysteria” about a possible military strike in the West was similar to the false claims and poor intelligence that preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Russia said its investigation of the March 19 incident was conducted under strict protocols established by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international agency that governs adherence to treaties prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. It said samples that Russian technicians had collected had been sent to OPCW-certified laboratories in Russia.

“The Russian report is specific,” the ministry statement said. “It is a scientific and technical document.”

The Russian statement said Russian officials had broken the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’ code of silence on such probes only because Western nations appear to be “preparing the ground for military action” in retaliation for the Aug. 21 incident.

A U.N. team spent four days late last month investigating the Aug. 21 incident. The samples it collected from the site and alleged victims of the attack are currently being examined at the chemical weapons organization’s labs in Europe. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged the United States to delay any strike until after the results of that investigation are known. But U.S. officials have dismissed the U.N. probe, saying it won’t tell them anything they don’t already know.

White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said U.S. officials were unmoved by the Russian report and held the Assad government responsible for both the Khan al Asal attack in March and the Aug. 21 attack outside Damascus.

“We have studied the Russian report but have found no reason to change our assessment,” she said.

Independent chemical weapons experts contacted by McClatchy said they were not familiar with the report and had not read the Russian statement, which was posted as Secretary of State John Kerry was appearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee to make the Obama administration’s case for a retaliatory strike on Syria as punishment for the August attack. But they were cautious about the details made public in the Russian statement.

Richard Guthrie, formerly project leader of the Chemical and Biological Warfare Project of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said the Russian statement on the makeup of the sarin found at Khan al Asal, which the Russians indicated was not military grade, might reflect only that “there are a lot of different ways to make sarin.”

He added: “The messy mix described by the Russians might also be the result of an old sarin stock being used. Sarin degrades (the molecules break up) over time and this would explain a dirty mix.”

He also said there could be doubts about the Russian conclusion that the rockets that delivered the sarin in the March 19 incident were not likely to have come from Syrian military stocks because of their use of RDX, an explosive that is also known as hexogen and T4.

“Militaries don’t tend to use it because it’s too expensive,” Guthrie said. He added in a later email, however, that it’s not inconceivable that the Syrian military would use RDX “if the government side was developing a semi-improvised short-range rocket” and “if there happened to be a stock available.”

“While I would agree that it would be unlikely for a traditional, well-planned short-range rocket development program to use RDX in that role, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that, as the Syrian government did not seem to have an earlier short-range rocket program, it may have been developing rockets with some haste and so using materials that are at hand,” he wrote.

Jean Pascal Zanders, a leading expert on chemical weapons who until recently was a senior research fellow at the European Union’s Institute for Security Studies, questioned a Russian assertion that the sarin mix appeared to be a Western World War II vintage.

“The Western Allies were not aware of the nerve agents until after the occupation of Germany,” he wrote in an email. “The USA, for example, struggled with the sarin (despite having some of the German scientists) until the 1950s, when the CW program expanded considerably.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry posted the statement shortly after Russian President Vladimir Putin had asked a Russian interviewer what the American reaction would be if evidence showed that Syrian rebels, not the Assad regime, had been behind a chemical weapons attack.

The report dealt with an incident that occurred March 19 in Khan al Asal, outside Aleppo, in which 26 people died and 86 were sickened. It was that incident that the U.N. team now probing the Aug. 21 attack was originally assigned to investigate, and the Russian statement noted that the investigation had been sidetracked by the sudden focus on the later incident.

Haq, the U.N. spokesman, acknowledged that the most recent attack “has pushed the investigation of the Aleppo incident to the back burner for now.” But he said that “the inspectors will get back to it as soon as is possible.”

The statement’s summary of the report said that neither the munitions nor the poison gas in the Khan al Asal attack appeared to fit what is possessed by the Syrian government. The statement said Russian investigators studied the site, sent the materials they found to study to the Russian laboratories of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and followed agreed-upon United Nations investigation standards.

According to the statement, the report said the shell “was not regular Syrian army ammunition but was an artisan-type similar to unguided rocket projectiles produced in the north of Syria by the so-called gang ‘Bashair An-Nasr.’”

The Russian analysis found soil and shell samples contained a sarin gas “not synthesized in an industrial environment,” the statement said. The report said the chemical mix did not appear to be a modern version of the deadly agent but was closer to those “used by Western states for producing chemical weapons during World War II.”

The statement said the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons team had examined Syrian soldiers injured in the March attack and said that no reaction to the more recent alleged chemical account should be considered without also considering that the rebels, too, have used chemical weapons.

“It is obvious that any objective investigation of the incident on Aug. 21 in East Ghouta is impossible without considering the circumstances of the March attack,” the statement said. Ghouta is the area near Damascus where the Aug. 21 attack took place.

FORD
09-05-2013, 09:46 PM
Senator Bernie Sanders (I - Vermont) wants to hear from you on Syria, and the other issues of the day.

Take the poll (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/polls/?utm_source=target&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Do+you+support+US+military+strikes+aga inst+Syria+prompt_url&utm_campaign=Target:+Sanders+on+Syria+09-06) at his website....

Nickdfresh
09-05-2013, 09:53 PM
I'm not saying I believe the Administration's findings in the attacks (I think they're exaggerated), but I think the Russians are completely full of shit on this and are transparently supporting Assad to the bitter end in order to keep their naval base and influence in the region. I'm also calling bullshit on the assertion that the rebels would have the know how, logistics, and command and control to launch such an attack that seems fairly sophisticated and fully inline with the Syrian gov't forces modus operandi of terrorizing civilians in order to pressure the rebels to relent...

Nickdfresh
09-05-2013, 09:57 PM
Here's something the Rebels DID do that I find abominable!


September 5, 2013
Brutality of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma in West
By C. J. CHIVERS

The Syrian rebels posed casually, standing over their prisoners with firearms pointed down at the shirtless and terrified men.

The prisoners, seven in all, were captured Syrian soldiers. Five were trussed, their backs marked with red welts. They kept their faces pressed to the dirt as the rebels’ commander recited a bitter revolutionary verse.

“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.

As the United States debates whether to support the Obama administration’s proposal that Syrian forces should be attacked for using chemical weapons against civilians, this video, shot in the spring of 2012, joins a growing body of evidence of an increasingly criminal environment populated by gangs of highwaymen, kidnappers and killers.

The video also offers a reminder of the foreign policy puzzle the United States faces in finding rebel allies as some members of Congress, including Senator John McCain, press for more robust military support for the opposition.

In the more than two years this civil war has carried on, a large part of the Syrian opposition has formed a loose command structure that has found support from several Arab nations, and, to a more limited degree, the West. Other elements of the opposition have assumed an extremist cast, and openly allied with Al Qaeda.

Across much of Syria, where rebels with Western support live and fight, areas outside of government influence have evolved into a complex guerrilla and criminal landscape.

That has raised the prospect that American military action could inadvertently strengthen Islamic extremists and criminals.

Abdul Samad Issa, 37, the rebel commander leading his fighters through the executions of the captured soldiers, illustrates that very risk.

Known in northern Syria as “the Uncle” because two of his deputies are his nephews, Mr. Issa leads a relatively unknown group of fewer than 300 fighters, one of his former aides said. The former aide, who smuggled the video out of Syria, is not being identified for security reasons.

A trader and livestock herder before the war, Mr. Issa formed a fighting group early in the uprising by using his own money to buy weapons and underwrite the fighters’ expenses.

His motivation, his former aide said, was just as the poem he recited said: revenge.

In Washington on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry addressed the issue of radicalized rebels in an exchange with Representative Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican. Mr. Kerry insisted, “There is a real moderate opposition that exists.”

Mr. Kerry said that there were 70,000 to 100,000 “oppositionists.” Of these, he said, some 15 percent to 20 percent were “bad guys” or extremists.

Mr. McCaul responded by saying he had been told in briefings that half of the opposition fighters were extremists.

Much of the concern among American officials has focused on two groups that acknowledge ties to Al Qaeda. These groups — the Nusra Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — have attracted foreign jihadis, used terrorist tactics and vowed to create a society in Syria ruled by their severe interpretation of Islamic law.

They have established a firm presence in parts of Aleppo and Idlib Provinces and in the northern provincial capital of Raqqa and in Deir al-Zour, to the east on the Iraqi border.

While the jihadis claim to be superior fighters, and have collaborated with secular Syrian rebels, some analysts and diplomats also note that they can appear less focused on toppling President Bashar al-Assad. Instead, they said, they focus more on establishing a zone of influence spanning Iraq’s Anbar Province and the desert eastern areas of Syria, and eventually establishing an Islamic territory under their administration.

Other areas are under more secular control, including the suburbs of Damascus. In East Ghouta, for example, the suburbs east of the capital where the chemical attack took place, jihadis are not dominant, according to people who live and work there.

And while the United States has said it seeks policies that would strengthen secular rebels and isolate extremists, the dynamic on the ground, as seen in the execution video from Idlib and in a spate of other documented crimes, is more complicated than a contest between secular and religious groups.

Mr. Issa’s father was opposed to President Hafez al-Assad, the father of Syria’s current president. He disappeared in 1982, according to Mr. Issa’s accounts.

Mr. Issa, the aide said, believes his father was killed during a 27-day government crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood that year, known as the Hama massacre.

By the time he was a young man, Mr. Issa was vocally antigovernment and was arrested and imprisoned twice for a total of nine months, the aide said.

When the uprising against Bashar al-Assad started two and a half years ago, the family saw it as a means to try to settle old scores.

At first, people who know Mr. Issa said, he was a protester, and then he led fighters in small skirmishes. By last year he was running a training camp in the highlands near Turkey.

By this year, the aide said, he was gathering weapons from relatives and Arab businessmen he knew from his work as a trader and, at least once, from the Western-supported Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army, the rebel forces.

(Two representatives of the military council declined to comment on the council’s military collaboration or logistical support for Mr. Issa’s group. Mr. Issa could not be reached for comment over two days this week.)

By the spring, his group had taken a resonant name: Jund al-Sham, which it shares with three international terrorist groups, and another group in Syria.

Its relationship — if any — with these other groups is not clear.

Mr. Issa’s former aide and two other men who have met or investigated him said he appears to assume identities of convenience.

But, they said, one of his tactics has been to promise to his fighters what he calls “the extermination” of Alawites — the minority Islamic sect to which the Assad family belongs, and which Mr. Issa blames for Syria’s suffering.

This sentiment may have driven Mr. Issa’s decision to execute his prisoners in the video, his former aide said. The soldiers had been captured when Mr. Issa’s fighters overran a government checkpoint north of Idlib in March.

Their cellphones, the former aide said, had videos of soldiers raping Syrian civilians and looting.

Mr. Issa declared them all criminals, he said, and a revolutionary trial was held. They were found guilty.

Mr. Issa, the former aide said, then arranged for their execution to be videotaped so he could show his work against Mr. Assad and his military to donors, and seek more financing.

The video ends abruptly after his fighters dump the soldiers’ broken bodies into a well.

One of the participants, a young man wearing a purple fleece jacket, looks into the camera and smiles.

Karam Shoumali contributed reporting from Antakya, Turkey; Anne Barnard from Beirut, Lebanon; and Michael R. Gordon from Washington.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: September 6, 2013

An article on Thursday about the brutal and ruthless tactics adopted by some rebel groups in Syria misstated the date of a video that showed a band of rebels executing seven captured Syrian soldiers. The video, which was smuggled out of Syria by a former rebel, was made in the spring of 2012, not April 2013.

Additionally, because of a production error in some copies, a passage in the last paragraph on the front-page portion was omitted. The full paragraph should have read: “In the more than two years this civil war has carried on, a large part of the Syrian opposition has formed a loose command structure that has found support from several Arab nations, and, to a more limited degree, the West. Other elements of the opposition have assumed an extremist cast, and openly allied with Al Qaeda.”

The NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

FORD
09-05-2013, 10:15 PM
http://i.imgur.com/0s1uVZF.jpg

vandeleur
09-06-2013, 02:45 AM
I would have thought the US will want use of Cyprus.

I imagine the Turkish prime minister will be become very popular pretty soon.

vandeleur
09-06-2013, 02:51 AM
Watching the news this morning it seems pretty obvious that the big issue here is how much Russia want to back the Syrians on this .
Russia has a lot staked in Syria and when the cruise missiles start being fired are they going to back their boy in this fight.
To the public Putin looks like he wants to play hard ball .

Nickdfresh
09-06-2013, 06:34 AM
I imagine the Turkish prime minister will be become very popular pretty soon.

I believe Turkey is one of the nations that wholeheartedly supports these strikes...

Coyote
09-06-2013, 06:52 AM
http://rt.com/op-edge/obama-attack-syria-g20-law-461/

Seshmeister
09-06-2013, 07:59 AM
"Obama’s democracy-bombs" is a keeper.

baru911
09-06-2013, 08:52 AM
Having returned from being outside of the US for just over nine months it has been interesting to look at US news reports on both CBS and NBC in regards to what President Ego is attempting to lead us towards. The very same news networks that would have lost their minds if the previous administration had rattled the US saber, and started a call for war in a country that did nothing to us now seem to be leading the charge towards the US getting involved in a country that has done NOTHING to get itself on our radar. CBS’ morning program had Congresswoman Blackburn (Representative for the congressional district around Ft. Campbell) on. What she stated wasn’t surprising. However, the questions that Charlie Rose, Gayle King asked her were to me

For example:

Charlie Rose - But what does he have to say to convince you it's the right thing to do?

Gayle King - Yesterday Sen. Kerry said the world is watching, the decision that you make - it's just as important what the decision that you make and how you make it. Are you feeling pressure here because many people were told yesterday, vote your conscience, this is not a political issue, vote your conscience. Can you really put politics aside when it seems to be so deeply divided in Congress?

Gee, those aren’t leading questions that are attempting to shape the way an interview leans and project a holier-than-thou view that it is wrong to question President Ego. What happened in the US press over the last 5 years that have caused such a dramatic change in their views on the US going to WAR in another country? Of course, they ask the Congresswoman to put aside her political leanings in making up her mind on the subject at hand but they themselves cannot and now are sounding the charge to send our Country into war.

The shift in their views seems to right out of a Superman comic. Did I leave the USA I knew and returned to the Bizarro USA?

Seshmeister
09-06-2013, 09:17 AM
I've been busy and not followed the news too closely, has anyone explained how dropping bombs will make things better?

vandeleur
09-06-2013, 09:28 AM
Think the logic being touted is dropping bombs is better than "doing nothing"
Which is on a par with "we have got this stuff we need to use it"

Nickdfresh
09-06-2013, 09:51 AM
I think the official line is that they're trying to pressure the gov't into a negotiated settlement and end the war with the Assad regime being shitcanned. Other than that, I have no clear objective nor endgame...

Another view is that if we don't do something, then it will be the North Koreans and the Iranians testing the waters next...

baru911
09-06-2013, 10:09 AM
According to the AP - The latest on Russian naval movements

Three Russian naval ships were sailing toward Syria in the eastern Mediterranean on Friday and a fourth was on its way, the Interfax news agency reported, citing a source at navy headquarters.

Kremlin chief of staff Sergei Ivanov said Russia was boosting its naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea, but primarily in order to organize a possible evacuation of Russians from Syria. He did not say how many vessels were being sent.

Two Russian amphibious landing vessels and a reconnaissance ship have passed through the Dardanelles strait, according to the report carried by Interfax, a privately owned agency known for its independent contacts within Russia's armed forces.

Three Russian war ships were seen sailing through the Bosporus in Istanbul, Turkey, on Thursday. It was not immediately clear if they were the same three vessels, although that seemed likely.

Interfax reported that another landing ship had left the Black Sea port of Sevastopol on Friday morning and was to pick up a "special cargo" in Novorossiysk before sailing toward the eastern Mediterranean. The state RIA Novosti news agency also said that the landing ship Nikolai Filchenkov would be headed toward Syria after picking up cargo in Novorossiysk, which it said would take several days.

The three ships reported to have passed through the Dardanelles are the Novocherkassk and Minsk landing vessels and Priazovye reconnaissance ship. The Defense Ministry said it was unable immediately to confirm the ships' departure.

baru911
09-06-2013, 10:24 AM
When you compare the response that the world had in 1988 when Iraq used chemical weapons to kill over 3,200 to 5,000 Kurds to what occurred in Syria 15 days ago none of this makes any sense. The only difference seems to be that a US President made a statement he shouldn’t have and now he wants to involve the USA in a scheme to allow him save face.

It is refreshing to see that polls show the US public continues to say in large percentages we have no business getting involved in the Syrian civil war.

Kristy
09-06-2013, 10:43 AM
How so, Niki Wiki?

sadaist
09-06-2013, 10:47 AM
When you compare the response that the world had in 1988 when Iraq used chemical weapons to kill over 3,200 to 5,000 Kurds to what occurred in Syria 15 days ago none of this makes any sense. The only difference seems to be that a US President made a statement he shouldn’t have and now he wants to involve the USA in a scheme to allow him save face.

It is refreshing to see that polls show the US public continues to say in large percentages we have no business getting involved in the Syrian civil war.



He already saved face by saying he decided to attack Syria. He put it to Congress and he KNOWS they will vote NO. He never ever wanted to go in. He just said he did knowing Congress would bail him out with that NO vote that's coming. It's all for show. He will come out looking quite the peach in this. He set a red line, he acted, congress shut him down.......and wow, extra points to him for following the constitution and putting it to congress.

Rubbish.

Nickdfresh
09-06-2013, 10:51 AM
How so, Niki Wiki?

God, I thought you would have lightened up from that massive orgasm Peyton Manning gave you last night...

Kristy
09-06-2013, 12:00 PM
Well that certainly answered the question. Fair and square.

Kristy
09-06-2013, 12:01 PM
Rubbish.

Dude, where are you from? Enough with the limey speak around here.

PETE'S BROTHER
09-06-2013, 12:13 PM
Dude, where are you from? Enough with the limey speak around here.

sesh taught him that... :019:

vandeleur
09-06-2013, 12:16 PM
Dude, where are you from? Enough with the limey speak around here.

That Limey sure burned you .... There there .

sadaist
09-06-2013, 12:48 PM
Dude, where are you from? Enough with the limey speak around here.


LOL

Someone here used the word rubbish a couple weeks ago. I liked it so much I am working it in to my routine. So we have 1 NO vote now. I'm currently in trial phase. No concrete decisions have been made. Perhaps I should allow congress to decide?



sesh taught him that... :019:

HA! That's right it was Sesh.

FORD
09-06-2013, 01:06 PM
Having returned from being outside of the US for just over nine months it has been interesting to look at US news reports on both CBS and NBC in regards to what President Ego is attempting to lead us towards. The very same news networks that would have lost their minds if the previous administration had rattled the US saber, and started a call for war in a country that did nothing to us now seem to be leading the charge towards the US getting involved in a country that has done NOTHING to get itself on our radar.

Seriously?

I don't know what corporate media you were watching in 2002-2003 during the Chimp-PNAC propaganda drive for the Iraq war, but the one I was watching looked a lot like this.....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX6p8UcL2I0

FORD
09-06-2013, 01:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x_vusWz33c

FORD
09-06-2013, 01:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qYWPjk6V3Y

FORD
09-06-2013, 03:18 PM
September 6, 2013

With the probability of American intervention, Syria is everywhere in the news. On this week’s Moyers & Company, Phil Donahue, filling in for Bill Moyers, speaks with National Public Radio Middle East correspondent Deborah Amos and historian and Vietnam veteran Andrew Bacevich about the possible repercussions of our actions in the Middle East.

As he has done so often in recent years, Andrew Bacevich is asking the important questions about America’s role in the world and specifically why we should go into Syria. Is a military response justified and if we take action, where does it stop? A graduate of West Point and Vietnam veteran, he served for 23 years in the military before becoming a professor at Boston University. His new book, Breach of Trust, asks whether our reliance on a professional military rather than a citizen’s army has lured us into a morass of endless war — a trap that threatens not only our global reputation but democracy itself.

Among its deadly side effects, the war in Syria has created a refugee crisis beyond that country’s borders — a “disgraceful humanitarian calamity” and “the great tragedy of this century,” according to the United Nations. Deborah Amos, a veteran National Public Radio correspondent, joins Donahue for a discussion about the human toll of the Syrian fighting, and the potential impact of millions of displaced people on the region.

Coyote
09-06-2013, 05:49 PM
A twist emerges!

http://rt.com/op-edge/mother-chemical-attack-footage-fraud-509/

VetteLS5
09-06-2013, 08:36 PM
His new book, Breach of Trust, asks whether our reliance on a professional military rather than a citizen’s army has lured us into a morass of endless war — a trap that threatens not only our global reputation but democracy itself.

I'm very skeptical about this whole situation, and I will be first to admit that I did not look nearly as far into the WMD deal as I should have prior to the invasion of Iraq. However, the question I have about this person/approach is how do they propose to address crisis with a "citizen's army". Clearly, Vietnam is a bad example, but based on this logic is it not a scenario where our country would be 100% UNPREPARED to fight? What a weird and interesting swing for anyone who is not a pacifist.... first we draft kids into a war, then create a "professional" army that most agree is the best prepared fighting force this nation has had, and that many of the active participants have great pride in - and now we go back to villagers with muskets to be on the ready at a moments notice? Kind of flies in the face of the gun control legislation too wouldn't you think?

FORD
09-06-2013, 09:01 PM
Well, since you brought "villagers with muskets" into this, remember that the "Founding Fathers" were very much against the existence of a permanent military, or "standing army", in the exact words that they used.

The whole point of the 2nd Ammendment - which the gun nuts like to use as an excuse to own unlimited numbers of automatic weapons) - was to support the concept of a "well regulated" militia, which could go into action, should there be any legitimate threat against the US. Switzerland (for example) is famous for being "neutral" and not keeping a standing army, but they do follow the "militia" model, and could fight if they had to.

But even if it's determined that we need permanent armed forces, what we definitely do NOT need is a permanent for (massive) profit "defense" industry. Or the CIA/NSA/TSA/DEA etc whjo have never actually done one fucking thing for the benefit of the American people. These things didn't exist until after 1947. And you will recall that was just after we won an actual war (declared by Congress, with a legitimate reason) and did just fine without those bastards.

B

baru911
09-07-2013, 08:08 AM
Direct link between Assad and gas attack elusive for U.S.

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?69286-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Kill-Or-Maim-a-1000/page5

(Reuters) - With the United States threatening to attack Syria, U.S. and allied intelligence services are still trying to work out who ordered the poison gas attack on rebel-held neighborhoods near Damascus.

No direct link to President Bashar al-Assad or his inner circle has been publicly demonstrated, and some U.S. sources say intelligence experts are not sure whether the Syrian leader knew of the attack before it was launched or was only informed about it afterward.

While U.S. officials say Assad is responsible for the chemical weapons strike even if he did not directly order it, they have not been able to fully describe a chain of command for the August 21 attack in the Ghouta area east of the Syrian capital.

It is one of the biggest gaps in U.S. understanding of the incident, even as Congress debates whether to launch limited strikes on Assad's forces in retaliation.

After wrongly claiming that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 U.S. invasion, the U.S. intelligence community, along with the Obama administration, are trying to build as solid a case as they can about what it says was a sarin nerve gas attack that killed over 1,400 people.

The Syrian government, backed by Russia, blames Sunni rebels for the gas attack. Russia says Washington has not provided convincing proof that Assad's troops carried out the attack and called it a "provocation" by rebel forces hoping to encourage a military response by the United States.

Identifying Syrian commanders or leaders as those who gave an order to fire rockets into the Sunni Muslim areas could help Obama convince a war-weary American public and skeptical members of Congress to back limited strikes against Assad.

But penetrating the secretive Syrian government is tough, especially as it fights a chaotic civil war for its survival.

"Decision-making at high levels within foreign governments is always a difficult intelligence target. Typically small numbers of people are involved, operational security is high, and penetration - through either human or technical means - is hard," said Paul Pillar, a former CIA expert on the Middle East.

One possible link between the gas attack and Assad's inner circle is the Syrian government body that is responsible for producing chemical weapons, U.S. and allied security sources say.

Personnel associated with the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Council (SSRC), which has direct ties to Assad's entourage, were likely involved in preparing munitions in the days before the attack, they say.

A declassified French intelligence report describes a unit of the SSRC, known by the code name "Branch 450", which it says is in charge of filling rockets or shells with chemical munitions in general.

U.S. and European security sources say this unit was likely involved in mixing chemicals for the August 21 attack and also may have played a more extensive role in preparing for it and carrying it out.

"BEST EVIDENCE"

Bruce Riedel, a former senior U.S. intelligence expert on the region and sometime advisor to the Obama White House, said that intelligence about the SSRC's alleged role is the most telling proof the United States has at hand.

"The best evidence linking the regime to the attack at a high level is the involvement of SSRC, the science center that created the (chemical weapons) program and manages it. SSRC works for the President's office and reports to him," Riedel said.

U.S. officials say Amr Armanazi, a Syrian official identified as SSRC director in a State Department sanctions order a year ago, was not directly involved.

Much of the U.S. claim that Assad is responsible was initially based on reports from witnesses, non-governmental groups and hours of YouTube videos.

U.S. officials have not presented any evidence to the public of scientific samples or intelligence information proving that sarin gas was used or that the Syrian government used it.

The United States has also not named any Syrian commanders it thinks gave the green light to fire gas-laden rockets into Ghouta.

But U.S. and allied security sources say they believe that Syrian military units responsible for the areas that were attacked were under heavy pressure from top commanders to wipe out a stubborn rebel presence there so government troops could redeploy to other trouble spots, including the city of Aleppo.

An analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, reported that a declassified U.S. government paper summarizing intelligence findings concludes that Syrian government officials were "witting and directed" the gas attack. But the evidence of who ordered it was not watertight, the analysis said.

The findings were partly based on intercepted communications "involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive" which "confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime," it said.

As more information has been collected and analyzed, early theories about the attack have largely been dismissed, U.S. and allied security sources said.

Reports that Assad's brother, Maher, a general who commands an elite Republican Guard unit and a crack Syrian army armored division, gave the order to use chemicals have not been substantiated, U.S. sources said. Some U.S. sources now believe Maher Assad did not order the attack and was not directly involved.

Nickdfresh
09-07-2013, 09:21 AM
I believe Assad's forces conducted the attack, I'm not sure I believe the numbers of 1,400 dead with 400 of them being children. I read something the other day where the French intell is saying it may be fewer than 300...

FORD
09-07-2013, 10:38 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-YBcWY8OtI

baru911
09-07-2013, 10:41 AM
Well, since you brought "villagers with muskets" into this, remember that the "Founding Fathers" were very much against the existence of a permanent military, or "standing army", in the exact words that they used.

The whole point of the 2nd Ammendment - which the gun nuts like to use as an excuse to own unlimited numbers of automatic weapons) - was to support the concept of a "well regulated" militia, which could go into action, should there be any legitimate threat against the US. Switzerland (for example) is famous for being "neutral" and not keeping a standing army, but they do follow the "militia" model, and could fight if they had to.

Those the same founding fathers who said/wrote any of the following?

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Thomas Jefferson

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
John Adams

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
James Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
James Madison

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
-Samuel Adams

FORD
09-07-2013, 10:59 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UbMG03DkJQ

Va Beach VH Fan
09-07-2013, 11:10 AM
I just continue to be confounded by this....

To those that oppose action, taking Syria out of the equation, are you thereby saying that chemical attacks are fair game anywhere in the world ??

Kristy
09-07-2013, 11:13 AM
No...no....no...leave the David Icke nonsense out of this.

FORD
09-07-2013, 11:21 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo1vzkgJ7Kg

FORD
09-07-2013, 11:37 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0ejxifllsk

Nickdfresh
09-07-2013, 11:38 AM
Those the same founding fathers who said/wrote any of the following?

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Thomas Jefferson

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
John Adams

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
James Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
James Madison

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
-Samuel Adams

"Brown sugar! Why do you taste so good!?"
Thomas Jefferson

sadaist
09-07-2013, 11:40 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UbMG03DkJQ


I don't know about lizard or not, but that botox sure has made his face change. I will say he is maybe the first I've seen where he actually looks healthier since the botox. Younger & healthier. If you google image photos of him there were times he looked pretty damn gaunt.

FORD
09-07-2013, 11:59 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXo_bTocynQ

Kristy
09-07-2013, 12:03 PM
Sorry Ford, but college professor guy is wrong here. The fuckiness that is the Middle East is far more rooted in political and social change than simple economics of wheat shortages.

FORD
09-07-2013, 12:13 PM
Sorry Ford, but college professor guy is wrong here. The fuckiness that is the Middle East is far more rooted in political and social change than simple economics of wheat shortages.

Obviously, but the wheat shortage, and specifically how the ASSad government responded to it, could very well have triggered the "civil" war. Proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Hell, it's the middle east, so it could have been a literal camel.

As Bob Marley said, "a hungry mob is an angry mob".....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIq7RvStNB0

Dr. Love
09-08-2013, 03:59 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/08/americans-not-interested-policing-world



Americans are no longer interested in policing the world, Mr Obama
However Congress votes on Syrian intervention, the White House will have problems escaping the fallout

After 12 years of endless war; after Afghanistan, after Iraq, after Libya, after the drones in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, the American people have had enough. There is perhaps no better explanation for the rather remarkable situation unfolding right now in Washington. President Obama has gone to the US Congress to ask for a military authorisation for the use of force against Syria after its international-norm-breaking use of chemical weapons against its own people.

Such requests are something of a pro forma exercise for US presidents. When the commander-in-chief wants to go to war, Congress is usually happy to comply (if it is even asked for permission, which is rare). This time, Congress is refusing to bite. Whip counts in the US House of Representatives indicate overwhelming opposition and not just among the president's political opponents in the Republican party but also among Democrats. Public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans are strongly against US involvement in Syria.

What is perhaps most surprising about this is that the Obama administration is seeking authorisation for a rather limited use of force. It is loudly proclaiming that there will be no US boots on the ground, no effort at regime change, no direct engagement in the Syrian civil war – just a few cruise missiles to uphold a global norm and teach Bashar al-Assad a lesson. Yet, while Obama will speak to the American people and make his case for military intervention on Tuesday, few political observers believe he will win the day (though one cannot fully discount the possibility).

It is an extraordinary turn of events and one that goes so strongly against the currents of recent history that it may come to represent a sea change, not just in how the US employs military force in the future but in the very construct of American foreign policy. No longer, it appears are Americans and Congress willing to give the commander-in-chief a virtual blank cheque.

So why is this happening?

Part of the reason is undoubtedly politics. Republicans, who in recent years have rarely met a military engagement they didn't enthusiastically support, would sooner cut off their right arms then give Obama anything that he actually wants. Yet their opposition to involvement in Syria also reflects a growing division within Republicans, between the party's neoconservative national security elite and its long-dormant isolationist wing. Indeed, the congressional vote on Syria may preview a titanic struggle over the foreign policy direction of the Republican party.

As for Democrats, particularly liberals who opposed the Iraq war and were ambivalent about the Afghanistan surge, even party loyalty may not be enough to get them to go along with the White House's plans. Unlike Obama, members of Congress will be on the ballot in 2014 and few of them are going to want to stick their neck out for a military strike that has little public support.

Beyond the political gamesmanship, opposition is due in large measure to the fuzziness of the White House's strategic plan. While norm enforcement and deterring future chemical attacks can be a justifiable rationale, the idea that the US would engage Syria over one category of weapons while doing nothing to stop the civil war that has taken 100,000 lives seems to many to be illogical. Moreover, the lack of clear strategic objectives, or a vital US national interest or even a fallback plan if Assad is not deterred from continuing to gas his people, is raising real doubts about the efficacy of intervention. And truth be told: the White House has done a dreadful job of making the case for war.

In August 2012, Obama laid down his infamous red line about the use of chemical weapons on Syria. Everyone assumed this meant that the US would engage militarily. But in the year since, he has made virtually no effort to prepare the public for that possibility. There was, from all appearances, little private consultation with Congress lining up support for a possible response and the administration position on Syria has long oozed with indifference about US involvement.

But when videos appeared showing hundreds of Syrians lying dead from an apparent chemical attack, the administration grabbed the biggest hammer in the toolbox and immediately started talking about launching cruise missiles and dropping bombs on Damascus. They completely misread the public's appetite for yet another war and were further blindsided by David Cameron's stunning failure to properly manage a parliamentary vote authorising British involvement in a military strike.

Obama's decision to go to Congress for authorisation reflected belated recognition of the emerging political reality and, at the time, looked like an inspired political move. But confidence that Congress would obediently go along with the president's plan (if one wants to be generous and call it that) was misplaced. Faced with growing congressional opposition, the administration is now taking the low road of fearmongering that a failure to punish Assad will embolden Iran, put Israel in danger or perhaps allow chemical weapons to fall into the hands of terrorists.

The White House finds itself in a political no-man's-land. Winning a vote in Congress will mean squandering political capital and twisting Democratic arms – all in pursuit of a military strategy that will, by the White House's own admission, do little to stop the bloodletting in Syria. Lose the vote and risk becoming a weakened lame duck three years before Obama's second term is up. Of course, Obama could ignore Congress, but then he risks entering into impeachment territory.

Yet, for all the short-term political fallout, the apparent train wreck on Syria might be the best thing to happen in American politics in a long time.

Since 11 September 2001, armchair generals (inside and outside government) have planned one military engagement after another and confidently predicted success – and then dodged accountability after repeated failures. The result has been quagmire after quagmire, trillions of dollars in costs and tens of thousands of dead and maimed Americans.

Those chickens have come home to roost. No matter how defensible the plan for military action in Syria might be; no matter how strong the impulse to punish the use of long-banned weapons; no matter how many assertions of limited engagement are made, Americans and their representatives in Congress appear finally resistant to buying the war-makers' tonic (some might say 10 years too late).

The desire of America's foreign policy elite to continue to demand that the US remain the indispensable nation and the world's policeman has come face to face with a public tired of war and tired of foreign policy failure. And the American people look poised to win this round.

FORD
09-08-2013, 04:00 PM
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/SiersK/2013/SiersK20130908_low.jpg

FORD
09-08-2013, 04:01 PM
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/BishR/2013/BishR20130908_low.jpg

Kristy
09-08-2013, 06:46 PM
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/iraq-2.jpg

Igosplut
09-08-2013, 08:21 PM
It's always been said the the difference between civility and Chaos is three missed meals.......

FORD
09-09-2013, 02:09 AM
https://sphotos-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/q71/1240350_496103323814886_628619408_n.jpg

Kristy
09-09-2013, 11:38 AM
I've been busy and not followed the news too closely, has anyone explained how dropping bombs will make things better?

Well...it will profit the American Industrial War Machine for one. It will benefit Israel in that the poor American solider will once again be fighting another of their scripted Zionist wars for them. It will keep the American people stupid, gullible and unquestioning the behavior of their own government. This war, like Iraq and Afghanistan is all about making money. Kerry, that Frankenstein-faced cocksucker doesn't give a shit abut those unfortunate Syrian children gassed by banned chemical agents that were most likely manufactured right here in Fredrick, Maryland (that we sold to Syria for profit) as he does by getting rich off of it.

FORD
09-09-2013, 02:16 PM
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/47621/large/TMW2013-09-11color.png

FORD
09-09-2013, 06:45 PM
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/RallT/2013/RallT20130909_low.jpg

Hardrock69
09-09-2013, 10:09 PM
I dig the new development....Russia wants to find the diplomatic solution....so Kerry makes an offhand comment, they seize on it, and away we go.

I think Russia, China and the US all need to send diplomats to see Assad, and tell him "Leave now, and you live, and we don't destroy your fucking country".

He is such a fucking dumbass....

baru911
09-10-2013, 09:21 AM
Syria says it accepted Russian weapons proposal

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?69286-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Kill-Or-Maim-a-1000/page6

MOSCOW (AP) -- Syria said Tuesday it has accepted Russia's proposal to place its chemical weapons under international control for subsequent dismantling.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said Tuesday after meeting with Russian parliament speaker that his government quickly "agreed to the Russian initiative."

Al-Moallem added that Syria did so to "uproot U.S. aggression."

His statement sounded more definitive than his remarks Monday, when he said that Damascus welcomed Russia's initiative.

Meanwhile, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Tuesday that Russia is now working with Syria to prepare a detailed plan of action, which will be presented shortly.

Lavrov said that Russia will then be ready to finalize the plan together with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

President Barack Obama said Monday the Russian proposal could be "potentially a significant breakthrough," but he remained skeptical that Syria would follow through.

Kristy
09-10-2013, 09:31 AM
The world has gone beyond mad

Seshmeister
09-10-2013, 09:39 AM
The world has gone beyond mad




The point that happened was this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/03/pelosi_uses_conversation_with_5-year-old_grandson_to_push_for_attack_on_syria.html

Pelosi's grandson is a cunt!

WACF
09-10-2013, 11:05 AM
The point that happened was this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/03/pelosi_uses_conversation_with_5-year-old_grandson_to_push_for_attack_on_syria.html

Pelosi's grandson is a cunt!

I get so tired of these stories.

Did the discussion really happen or did they just regurgitate the over used "I talked to a child" story to make this simple for us common folk.

WACF
09-10-2013, 11:45 AM
edited....link did not work

Kristy
09-10-2013, 12:15 PM
edited....link did not work

Kirsten Dunst

Anyhoo, the whole using children babies angle to go to war has been used before


Same deal only the county has changed.

DLR Bridge
09-10-2013, 12:27 PM
Can you explain the Kirsten Dunst barb you're using everywhere to me please?

Muchas thanksias.

WACF
09-10-2013, 12:27 PM
Kirsten Dunst

Anyhoo, the whole using children babies angle to go to war has been used before


Same deal only the county has changed.

Remember the "Unluckiest Woman in Iraq" bullshit?

Same grieving woman but different locations...

The media eats up all this shit.

FORD
09-10-2013, 12:37 PM
I don't believe that Pelosi's 5 year old grandson had a meaningful conversation with her about war any more than I believe Judas IsKerryot knows all the things about the Syrian weapons that he claims he knows.

So is World War III postponed for the time being? Hopefully so........

I'm sure the Obamabots over at DU will be singing the praises of "Barry the master 12 dimensional chess player" as usual. But that's not what it looks like to me. Who is it that always wins those international chess tournaments??

Somebody named Kasparov, or Karpov, or something like that. Or maybe Putin, in this case?

But if this is true, then why is Barry meeting in secret right now with the false "Democrats" in the Senate, doing to AIPAC what Monica did to Bill :blow:

FORD
09-10-2013, 01:03 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ#t=52

Nickdfresh
09-10-2013, 09:38 PM
Well, what did everyone think of the speech? I'm still not convinced that we should open up a can of Tomahawks, but I do think he made his points effectively and concisely...

Nickdfresh
09-10-2013, 09:42 PM
I also like that he seems to be open to diplomacy based on the current Russian proposal to seize Syria's weapons...

FORD
09-10-2013, 10:35 PM
I think I agree with Malloy that the speech sounded somewhat "schizophrenic".

And that doesn't mean literally mentally ill in this case, but a whole double-mindedness about the whole thing. It's almost as if Barry gave the first half of his speech exactly as AIPAC had written it for him before yesterday, and then they added on the other part, after they started talking to Pooty about getting rid of Syria's chemicals, without changing the first part.

Which leaves the impression that he hasn't changed his mind about bombing Syria. And I know damn well that AIPAC/PNAC/Likud hasn't. Or ever will.

FORD
09-10-2013, 11:21 PM
"Pro-Israel" groups in United States scramble to save Syria strike resolution
By MICHAEL WILNER AND MAYA SHWAYDER
JERUSALEM POST (http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Pro-Israel-groups-in-United-States-scramble-to-save-Syria-strike-resolution-325681)
10/09/2013

AIPAC, AJC, WJC lobby as over 150 House members signal they will oppose measure; ZOA and other Jewish groups take less active role, believe that the question to bomb Syria is not clear cut.

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK – "Jewish" groups are preparing a blitz on Capitol Hill this week to salvage a resolution that would authorize the use of force in Syria in response to a devastating chemical weapons attack outside Damascus on August 21.

The effort, though, may be too little, too late, with over 150 House members already signaling that they will oppose the measure.

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, an American Israel Public Affairs Committee official acknowledged the difficulty of the task ahead, calling it a “challenge well worth undertaking.”

“It’s difficult, but it’s doable,” the official said.

“Anything of this importance is often this difficult. We’re not blind to the challenge here.”

When asked about the last resolution that AIPAC pushed for in the House– which included a harsh sanctions package against Iran, aimed at bringing their oil exports down to zero– the official said his organization knew the Syria vote would be a heavier lift.

“It’s not just passing a resolution,” said the official. “It’s showing determination that the US will not stand for the use of unconventional weapons against a civilian population.”

AIPAC in sending nearly 300 activists and lobbyists to meet personally with House members on the Hill throughout the week.

“We believe there’s an overwhelming moral and strategic case,” the AIPAC official added. “If we cannot act on Iran’s proxy, Syria, employing unconventional weapons, it’s going to be very difficult to deter Iran from acquiring such weapons.”

Get the fuck out of my country, you treasonous cunt :gun:


For the Zionist Organization of America, the question of whether to bomb Syria was not clear-cut.

“There is no simple answer, no matter what your position is, whether you’re pro-Israel or pro-Arab,” said Morton Klein, president of the ZOA. “The ZOA feels if you weaken [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, then you strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaida, who are the largest active element in the rebels and are getting stronger. If you don’t weaken Assad, that helps Iran and Hezbollah, which are a greater threat to America, to Israel and to the West.”

“We feel that if American attacks Syria, it’s important that it be a serious strike to degrade Assad’s arms and weaken Iran and Hezbollah,” Klein continued. “We’re against a weak, nonresponse.”

Klein said that the ZOA has not done any direct lobbying on the Hill for its position, but that he had spoken with several staffers and a Congressman, who he would not name, and said that their minds are in a similar place.

“Many on the Hill are not even clear whether Assad did this or the rebels did,” he said.

Well, aside from buying into the "Al Qaeda" bullshit, at least Mort here is a little closer to sanity.....

Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Council of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, echoed Klein’s thoughts that this is a “complex and serious issue.”

“As American Jewish constituents, this is not about Israel,” Hoenlein said. “This is a strategic issue that will have broader implications.”

Since it is an “international norm” to avoid and condemn the use of chemical weapons, Hoenlein said, the US could potentially set a “dangerous precedent” in how they choose to proceed, and could open the door to Iran simply ignoring US diplomatic threats.

“The failure to uphold the international norm could be an invitation to the other members of the Axis of Evil to act in a similar manner,” Hoenlein said.

Uh, Malcolm..... has nobody told you that the "Axis of Evil" is about as real as the "Axis of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy"??

Hoenlein, like Klein, said his organization was not doing any lobbying. But the American Jewish Committee and the World Jewish Congress’s American Section have both chosen to take an active role via letters and emails, spokeswoman for the WJC Betty Ehrenberg said.

In a statement released on September 3, the WJC said they “call on the United States Congress to support a resolution that will authorize President [Barack] Obama to take punitive action in response to the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.... The message must be undeniably clear to Syria and other countries – the United States will stand by its principles, hold to its redlines, and hold to account those who possess, seek and use weapons of mass destruction.”

When do we subject the terrorist NuttyYahoo to the same standards?

AJC’s executive director David Harris and AJC president Stanley Bergman announced just before Rosh Hashana that they had sent a letter to all members of the US Senate and House of Representatives, asking them to support Obama’s plan to strike.

Harris has taken a strong position pro-attack in op-eds in The Huffington Post and The Jerusalem Post, writing “If the United States now flinches, and despite our declared ‘redline,’ let’s Syria get away with the use of chemical weapons, then what is the message sent to the world?”

Nickdfresh
09-11-2013, 07:15 AM
AIPAC, and those evil hook nosed Jewy Jew bags aren't the only ones demanding war, Ford. EVERYONE ON THE BORDERS OF SYRIA are demanding war! The Turks, the Jordanians (facing a humanitarian nightmare of refugees driven out largely by the brutality and wanton use of ordnance by the Assad regime on civilians). They all want the Syrian regime out! So, I think people are sort of unfairly focusing on Israel and AIPAC here while forgetting the Saudis would like to see Assad buried...

ashstralia
09-11-2013, 07:30 AM
Holy shit. Rupert's media is reporting a million people leaving. That's a lot of people when you add babies and the elderly into the mix...

Nickdfresh
09-11-2013, 09:50 AM
Incidentally, did anyone watch Rand Paul embarrass himself on CNN last night by completely contradicting himself and essentially agreeing with everything Obama said? He started out criticizing Obama (with a good point) that his proposed limited strikes allow Assad off the hook and he should perhaps be tried for war crimes. But then, he turns into a completely disingenuous base-pandering retard and states that we're helping "al Qaida" and that the collapse of the Assad regime would lead to chaos and Islamic fundies controlling Syria. Which one the fuck is it, dude?

Nickdfresh
09-11-2013, 10:02 AM
I think Piers Morgan, who is a bit of a cunt, also raised a good point by reading a quote from Bill Kristol (another cunt, with a good point) that the message is feel free to slaughter your people, "just don't use gas."

Piers mentioned this to Randi Paul, and it went completely over his head until explained with monosyllabic words. Why anyone takes Paul seriously is beyond me, he seems like a total lightweight...

FORD
09-11-2013, 10:54 AM
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/LoweC/2013/LoweC20130911_low.jpg

WACF
09-11-2013, 11:05 AM
AIPAC, and those evil hook nosed Jewy Jew bags aren't the only ones demanding war, Ford. EVERYONE ON THE BORDERS OF SYRIA are demanding war! The Turks, the Jordanians (facing a humanitarian nightmare of refugees driven out largely by the brutality and wanton use of ordnance by the Assad regime on civilians). They all want the Syrian regime out! So, I think people are sort of unfairly focusing on Israel and AIPAC here while forgetting the Saudis would like to see Assad buried...

Naturally the Saudis want Assad out...then the rebels can continue burning Christian Churches...

FORD
09-11-2013, 11:24 AM
AIPAC, and those evil hook nosed Jewy Jew bags aren't the only ones demanding war, Ford. EVERYONE ON THE BORDERS OF SYRIA are demanding war! The Turks, the Jordanians (facing a humanitarian nightmare of refugees driven out largely by the brutality and wanton use of ordnance by the Assad regime on civilians). They all want the Syrian regime out! So, I think people are sort of unfairly focusing on Israel and AIPAC here while forgetting the Saudis would like to see Assad buried...

But there's no such thing as a "TURKPAC" or a "JORDANPAC" controlling Congress. The Saudis certainly do have their lobbyists (not to mention a huge stake in FAUX Noize), but their motives are more about controlling the gas pipelines in the region, with a religious preference of Sunni over Shia as a backup.

It's a dickish motivation on their part, but at least it's understandable in an economic extremist sort of way.

As opposed to the Israeli motivation, which is all about one sick fuck's obsession with Iran.

WACF
09-11-2013, 11:33 AM
But there's no such thing as a "TURKPAC" or a "JORDANPAC" controlling Congress. The Saudis certainly do have their lobbyists (not to mention a huge stake in FAUX Noize), but their motives are more about controlling the gas pipelines in the region, with a religious preference of Sunni over Shia as a backup.

It's a dickish motivation on their part, but at least it's understandable in an economic extremist sort of way.

As opposed to the Israeli motivation, which is all about one sick fuck's obsession with Iran.


Too bad there was not a country closer to yours that had oil and gas...one that was perhaps ethical in the way it treats it's workers.

One that put a huge amount of money into research and reforesting affected areas.

You could maybe build pipelines and refineries...but....na...if only...

FORD
09-11-2013, 11:42 AM
Well, maybe if you had some that wasn't such a corrosive toxic mess.... and didn't want to build the pipeline here, just so you could sell it off to China (because your own people don't want it going over/through the Rockies.)

But yeah, if less toxic oil was available, I guess Stevie Harper would be slightly preferable to deal with than ASSad, Bandar Bush, or Nutty Yahoo.

WACF
09-11-2013, 11:56 AM
Well, maybe if you had some that wasn't such a corrosive toxic mess.... and didn't want to build the pipeline here, just so you could sell it off to China (because your own people don't want it going over/through the Rockies.)

But yeah, if less toxic oil was available, I guess Stevie Harper would be slightly preferable to deal with than ASSad, Bandar Bush, or Nutty Yahoo.


The people that do not want it across the Rockies is your own Rockefeller Center...paying professional activists and buying First Nations support with wads of cash.

It is much easier for enviro's to pick on Canada...it won't get you killed...

Other than that we have a Premier who wants to cash in...not realizing that in turn we could "cash in" everytime a truck or rail car bringing materials east crosses into our province.

Politics.

FORD
09-11-2013, 05:47 PM
....on the 40th anniversary of his greatest war crime, the ORIGINAL "9/11" in Chile.

Kerry To Host Henry Kissinger, Foreign Affairs Experts As Syria Deal Looms

Posted: 09/11/2013 12:00 am EDT | Updated: 09/11/2013 10:58 am EDT

WASHINGTON -- Secretary of State John Kerry will spend much of Wednesday meeting with senior members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment, as he attempts to press the case for U.S. engagement in Syria.

Kerry is scheduled to meet one-on-one with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger Wednesday afternoon, and address a meeting of the 25-member Foreign Affairs Policy Board Wednesday morning. On Wednesday evening, Kerry will host a dinner for FAPB members at the State Department, according to an official schedule.

Widely considered a godfather of U.S.-Russia relations, Kissinger served as Secretary of State under President Richard Nixon and President Gerald Ford. As the nation's top diplomat, he pioneered the idea of developing a détente, or cooperation based on shared interests, between the leaders of the world's two nuclear superpowers.

As the Obama administration seeks to work with Russia to craft a plan to rid Syria of chemical weapons, Kissinger could prove invaluable as both an adviser and a public ally.

On Monday, Kissinger told CNN he supports President Obama's request for authorization of the use of military force in Syria, "for the limited purpose of penalizing the use of weapons of mass destruction."

The bipartisan membership of the Foreign Affairs Policy board reads like a "who's who" of leading (war criminal) experts in diplomatic, military and economic affairs. First assembled in 2011 by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the board's mission is to provide top American diplomats with "independent, informed advice and opinion concerning matters of U.S. foreign policy."*

Strobe Talbott, president of the nonpartisan Brookings Institution and a former Deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton administration, is chairman of the FAPB. An expert on U.S.-Russia relations, Talbott offered a qualified backing this week of Obama's request to authorize military strikes on Syria. The best case scenario, he tweeted, would be a deal based on Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's proposal that the U.S. suspend plans to strike Syrian targets in exchange for Syrian President Bashar Assad ceding his stockpile of chemical weapons.


Trifecta: negotiated version of Lavrov proposal (Syria gives up CW, US doesn't strike) forms basis of resolutions passed by Congress & UNSCR
— Strobe Talbott (@strobetalbott) September 10, 2013

Other members of the board include figures ranging from former Director of National Intelligence John "Nicaraguan Death Squads" Negroponte, who served in George W. Bush's administration, to the appropriately named Anne Marie Slaughter, formerly State Department Director of Policy Planning in the Obama administration.

* - geezus.... did somebody really write that with a straight face???

Nickdfresh
09-14-2013, 09:03 AM
*****BREAKING NEWS****

CNN is reporting the United States and Russia have reached an agreement in principle of accounting for Syrian chemical weapons and disarming Syrian gov't forces of their chemical weapons...

Nickdfresh
09-14-2013, 09:09 AM
US-Russia reach agreement on Syria weapons
Associated Press
MATTHEW LEE and JOHN HEILPRIN 39 minutes ago

GENEVA (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reached agreement Saturday on a framework for Syria to destroy all of its chemical weapons, and said they would seek a U.N. Security Council resolution that could authorize sanctions — short of military action — if Syrian President Bashar Assad's government fails to comply.

The deal announced by the diplomats on the third day of intense negotiations in Geneva includes what Kerry called "a shared assessment" of Syria's weapons stockpile, and a timetable and measures for Assad's government to comply.

"The world will now expect the Assad regime to live up to its public commitment," Kerry told a packed news conference in the Intercontinental Hotel in Geneva, where he has been staying and the negotiations were conducted since Thursday night. "There can be no games, no room for avoidance, or anything less than full compliance by the Assad regime."

The deal calls for international inspectors to be on the ground in Syria by November and to complete their initial work by the end of that month. All of Syria's chemical weapons stocks, material and equipment would have to be destroyed or removed by mid-2014.

Administration officials had said that President Barack Obama was open to a Security Council resolution that did not include military force as a punishment if Assad doesn't follow through on promises regarding the weapons. While Russia would be all but certain to veto any measure with such a penalty, Obama's willingness to concede the point — after threatening a U.S.-led military strike with or without approval by the U.S. Congress — provided a step forward.
View gallery."
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, second right, and …
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, second right, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, back t …

"I have no doubt that the combination of the threat of force and the willingness to pursue diplomacy helped to bring us to this moment," Kerry said.

"Providing this framework is fully implemented, it can end the threat these weapons pose, not only to the Syrian people, but also to their neighbors, to the region, and because of the threat of proliferation, this framework can provide greater protection and security to the world," he said.

But the stakes have been especially high in Geneva, because the negotiations between the United States and Russia on securing Syria's chemical weapons also are considered key to breaking the international stalemate that has so far blocked a resumption of peace talks to end the Syrian civil war, now in its third year.

"We have committed to a standard that says, verify and verify," Kerry said.

Among the highlights of the agreement is that the U.S. and Russia would agree to work together on a new, binding Security Council resolution that would ensure verification of the agreement to secure and destroy Syria's chemical weapons stocks and remove its capability to produce such weapons.


The resolution would allow for punitive measures for non-compliance, but stop short of military action, if the 15-nation Security Council approves them. The U.S. and Russia are two of the five permanent Security Council members with a veto. The others are Britain, China, and France.

Another major feature of the agreement is that the U.S. and Russia plan to give Syria one week, until Sept. 21, to submit "a comprehensive listing, including names, types and quantities of its chemical weapons agents, types of munitions, and local and form of storage, production, and research and development facilities."

In addition, the U.S. and Russia have agreed that international inspectors should be on the ground in Syria by November and complete their initial work by the end of the month. They must be given "immediate and unfettered" access to inspect all sites.

Notably, Kerry said they had agreed on grounds under which they might request a Security Council "Chapter 7" resolution at the United Nations, which is a measure that could include military and non-military sanctions.

But Lavrov, who said the agreement was "based on consensus and compromise and professionalism," indicated there would be limits to using a Chapter 7 resolution, which Russia would almost certainly veto if it specifically authorized a military strike such as what President Barack Obama has threatened.

"Any violations of procedures ... would be looked at by the Security Council and if they are approved, the Security Council would take the required measures, concrete measures," Lavrov said.

"Nothing is said about the use of force or about any automatic sanctions. All violations should be approved by the Security Council," he added.

Kerry also said any violations will result in "measures" from the Security Council, while Lavrov said the violations must be sent to the Security Council from the board of the chemical weapons convention before sanctions — short of the use of force — would be considered.

Kerry said the pair and their teams of experts had come to agreement on the exact size of Syria's weapons stockpile, which had been a sticking point before their meetings in Geneva. But in marathon sessions into early morning hours, the U.S. and Russia succeeded in narrowing their differences.

The agreement over the Russian proposal to inventory, isolate and eventually destroy Syria's chemical weapons stocks comes as the Obama administration warned that there is a timetable for a diplomatic resolution of the weapons issue.
View gallery."
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, right, and Russian …
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, right, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, back to camer …

Administration officials have said that Obama would retain the authority to order U.S. airstrikes against Syria. Obama himself said that any agreement to remove Syria's chemical weapons stockpile "needs to be verifiable and enforceable."

U.N. inspectors prepared to turn in their own poison gas report this weekend. Two U.N. diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because the time was not yet final, said Friday night that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was expected to brief the Security Council about the report on Monday morning.

Ban said Friday that he expected "an overwhelming report" that chemical weapons were indeed used on the outskirts of Damascus on Aug. 21. Obama called for a limited military strike against Assad's forces in response, then deferred seeking congressional approval to consider the Russian proposal.

Kerry and Lavrov also met Friday with U.N.-Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi about the potential for a new peace conference in the Swiss city. Kerry said he, Lavrov and Brahimi agreed to meet around Sept. 28 on the sidelines of the annual U.N. General Assembly meetings in New York.

"We are committed to try to work together, beginning with this initiative on the chemical weapons, in hopes that those efforts could pay off and bring peace and stability to a war-torn part of the world," Kerry said.
View gallery."
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, centre, is …
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, centre, is surrounded by media following meetings regarding …

Kerry, flanked by Lavrov and Brahimi, told reporters after an hour-long meeting that the chances for a second peace conference in Geneva will require success first with the chemical weapons talks.

Kerry planned to travel to Jerusalem Sunday to discuss the situation in Syria with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He will then go to Paris to see French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius and British Foreign Secretary William Hague on Monday about the Syrian war. In Paris, he will meet separately with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal.

AP at Yahoo.com (http://news.yahoo.com/us-russia-reach-agreement-syria-weapons-102700028--politics.html)