Syrian Chemical Weapons Kill Or Maim a 1000

[Nickdfresh]

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

[Nickdfresh]

Video footage or possible sarin nerve gas attack...

[FORD]

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]

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.

[ELVIS]

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]

Well? What did Alex Jones tell you what to think?

[FORD]

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]

We may well be firing missiles soon, for better or worse...

[vandeleur]

@frankieboyle: A good way to deal with a complex political problem is to bomb it and see what happens

Funny and scary

[FORD]

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]

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]

Interesting take on it

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/...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]

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]

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]

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]

It is time to sit this out.

This.

[FORD]

[ODShowtime]

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]

....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 was famous for publishing letters like that, and what they eventually led up to, right??

[FORD]

[FORD]

[Nickdfresh]

The U.S. Navy has several destroyers in place to launch...

[Nickdfresh]

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]

Oh dear...
This could be the big one.

[FORD]

[FORD]

[Seshmeister]

....look what the treasonous piece of shit William Kristol published in his own Weakly Standard......



Y'all remember which fascist terrorist war criminal organization was famous for publishing letters like that, and what they eventually led up to, right??

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

He should probably be in jail.

[FORD]

Every last goddamned one of those treasonous fucks should be in jail

Certainly deserve it far more than Bradley Chelsea Manning.

[FORD]

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]

The U.S. Navy has several destroyers in place to launch...

Your Wikiening is on fire these days, Nick.

[vandeleur]

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]

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]

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!!!!

[FORD]

[Hardrock69]

We are not all the way out of AssRamistan yet either.

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

[Seshmeister]

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]

Pussies...

[WACF]

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]

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/201...o-attack/?_r=0

[Nickdfresh]

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