Tragic. If we fire a couple dozen cruise missiles it might stop or it might escalate things. Sadly I think this is one we need to sit out and see how this is plays out a little more before we get involved at all. There is so much instability in that region right now. Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Lebanon, etc... Who would have thought that Iran would be among the more stable ones?
Well, it looks like this is probably happening: REPORT: Obama Is Considering A Limited Two-Day Strike On Syrian Military Targets http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-obama-considering-limited-two-115337995.html If true, this is completely pointless. Firing a few dozen Tomahawks at Assad's forces is not going to make a difference either way on the battlefield. It's l;ike a spanking that doesn't even really hurt the kid, he just looks at you and laughs. If we're going to do this (and I think we shouldn't) then we ought to make it matter, at least maintain a sustained air campaign as in Libya. A "two-day strike" is obviously only engineered for PR purposes so that O can pretend that he matched his tough "red line" rhetoric with force and say that he did something. I suspect that they realize if they actually went the distance and used sufficient force to topple Assad the resulting boon to AQ and the jihadists would far outweigh the consequences of doing nothing. So they are calculating that they can use force for the PR effect but not enough to tip the scales.
Iran is pulling strings behind the scenes. They are orchestrating at least some of this and are a major player in the Syrian war. They have Quds on the ground in Syria helping Assad's forces.
Is there a chance Syria can send operatives to the US with their chemical weapons and hit us with a terrorist attack?
All of you who (rightfully) bashed W for the Iraq invasion better start ripping Obama if this goes down as well. This is so sketchy http://www.aina.org/news/20130826131925.htm Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday. Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof," that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent. But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC, but she added that more investigation was needed. Damascus has recently facing growing Western accusations that its forces used such weapons, which President Obama has described as crossing a red line. But Ms. del Ponte's remarks may serve to shift the focus of international concern. Ms. del Ponte, who in 1999 was appointed to head the U.N. was crimes tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, has sometimes been a controversial figure. She was removed from her Rwanda post by the U.N. Security Council in 2003, but she continued as the chief prosecutor for the Yugoslav tribunal until 2008. Ms. del Ponte, a former Swiss prosecutor and attorney general, told Swiss TV: "Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals. According to their report of last week, which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated." She gave no further details, the BBC said. The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria was established in August 2011 to examine alleged violations of human rights in the Syrian conflict which started in March that year. It is due to issue its next report to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in June. Rebel Free Syrian Army spokesman Louay Almokdad denied that rebels had use chemical weapons. "In any case, we don't have the mechanism to launch these kinds of weapons, which would need missiles that can carry chemical warheads, and we in the FSA do not possess these kind of capabilities," Mr. Almokdad told CNN. "More importantly, we do not aspire to have (chemical weapons) because we view our battle with the regime as a battle for the establishment of a free democratic state. … We want to build a free democratic state that recognizes and abides by all international accords and agreements -- and chemical and biological warfare is something forbidden legally and internationally." By Shaun Waterman Washington Times
Why would they? Assad isn't suicidal. Only way I could see that being within the realm of possibility is if Obama decided to topple Assad.
Assad seems a lot more rational to me than these rebels. I am almost sure that the Al Qaeda operatives are behind the Sarin attack. It wouldn't make any sense whatsoever for Assad to do it. He was winning. He had not done it even when he was losing.
I would agree except for they bombed the area afterward which appears to be an effort to cover up the evidence. Now if someone else had done it, I would think it would benefit them to prove what crazy rebels are doing to their own in an effort to gain support. ie...not bomb the area afterward.
Again, why are people not screaming from the rooftops that we are (potentially) planning to strike another country based on flimsy evidence (again) and in the process ARE HELPING OUT AL QAEDA... Baffles me
Hold on - this is certainly all sketchy, but the article is even sketchier. This part: Implies that this "strong/concrete" quote refers to rebels using gas. But then there's this: This is the context of the quote, and if the BBC part about no further details is accurate, it seems to just suggest that she's saying there's evidence specifically of sarin gas - nothing about who did it, but simply confirmation of the type of weapon used. Obama has asked that the US report be declassified and released, so if we get that, we'll get some more info and evidence - but it will be interesting to see where this all goes. If the evidence does points to the rebels using it, there are multiple problems that will come up. First, the US response will be all messed up. Second, it means that AQ-types have access to sarin gas, which is a much bigger and deeper problem for the US.
People were fine with airstrikes against Iraq and all sorts of other countries. The issue comes with putting US soldiers in harm's way (boots on the ground). If Obama was to propose that, all hell would break loose.
That could be possibly and at the moment I am open that the Rebels might've done this. That said based on earlier WMD attacks carried by Assad, and or the Rebels, there was pretty much no response from the West. Assad could've just figured that any threats were toothless and it was worth it to force the Rebels out of that part of Damascus while not risking his own troops.
Agree with Art V that we should sit this out, with blake as to WTF?, and with treeman about the pointlessness of missile strikes. Just completely sad. Good article by Bergen at CNN about some of the voices Obama is hearing from. http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/26/opinion/bergen-syria-problem/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 The one person has written a 600 page book about how wimpy the US has historically been when first hearing of genocides/atrocities. Kind of hawkish on early action.
This. It should give everyone pause, but our govt seems to be rushing this. The proclamations yesterday that there's no way to investigate this and the rejection of Assad's offer are quite baffling. Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence! Fire away!
