Sign in to follow this  
Milo Christensen

Crossing the "red line" in Syria - or not

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stop this crazy spinning ball for a minute, I want off. Never in my worst nightmare did I think that we would end up having no other good option than supporting Ba'athists and Hezbollah against Al Qaida (I love that word, you can spell it any way you want) as a seriously proposed humanitarian option. Fuck. I think it is time to seriously consider removing all three power groups from Syria.

It's understandable, even perfectly normal, for people who have lived here all their lives and know only what they see and hear in the Fun House mirror of our media to be confused about the region, Squirel. Most of the parrots are chosen not by knowledge, but by their ability to continually babble without seeming to be babbling and in nice pear shaped tones. Most of them really don't know much about much of anything, and this includes more and more people who write the stuff for them. CNN closed it's foreign offices. "Too expensive".Anyway, the net effect is you don't know what "Ba'athist" really is, "Hezb'allah" really is, and were easily convinced that they were all in league against us with "Al Q'aeda". It may have been deemed necessary to deliberately do that in order to make you easy to manipulate. Might have just been an accident.

 

 

Master, please tell me when I'll be ready to be as condescendingly patronizing as the great Master. What must I study?

 

 

Google is your friend.

 

 

But, but, what must I ask the great and mighty Google? Please, I must not wallow in such ignorance.

 

 

Relax. The first, most painful step you have accomplished. You have courageously begun to sound the depths of that yawning chasm, the immense, bottomless abyss which is your ignorance.

 

Twice someone has reported that Assad is gaining ground, and you haven't labeled the people who reported it "psychotic" as you did just a couple weeks ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.N. launches the biggest humanitarian appeal in the history oh the U.N. But we can't stop the war creating the humanitarian crisis. Fuckin ragheads aren't like us, they're not like Kenyan Muslims, we can't afford to help them, we'll give more money to dog shelters than these raggedy ass refugees, Jordan (which can't even supply drinking water to the 500,000 + refugees) is on the border, they can fuckin deal with it. Why doesn't Lebanon, or Saudi Arabia, or Irag, why don't their goddamn raghead neighbors do something, Keerist, we've done enough, what side should we support anyway, sure can't support peace and stability for them frickin ragheads, they'd just rise up and blow up more get togethers of us decent Americans. Oh look, cute pictures of a Squirel! The weather is next after these brief messages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now look what you've done.

 

No wonder Mark gets confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.N. launches the biggest humanitarian appeal in the history oh the U.N. But we can't stop the war creating the humanitarian crisis. Fuckin ragheads aren't like us, they're not like Kenyan Muslims, we can't afford to help them, we'll give more money to dog shelters than these raggedy ass refugees, Jordan (which can't even supply drinking water to the 500,000 + refugees) is on the border, they can fuckin deal with it. Why doesn't Lebanon, or Saudi Arabia, or Irag, why don't their goddamn raghead neighbors do something, Keerist, we've done enough, what side should we support anyway, sure can't support peace and stability for them frickin ragheads, they'd just rise up and blow up more get togethers of us decent Americans. Oh look, cute pictures of a Squirel! The weather is next after these brief messages.

 

Buried within that attempt to seem intelligent was is actually a good question: "Why don't we do something?"

 

The place is ethically even more complex than Iraq. Try "Lebanon on steroids" as a google. It is also large and well armed. Talking another operation on the scale of Iraq, and the Powell Doctrine is back in vogue, which has been embellished with The Great General Dave's Commentary: "How does this end?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The U.N. launches the biggest humanitarian appeal in the history oh the U.N. But we can't stop the war creating the humanitarian crisis. Fuckin ragheads aren't like us, they're not like Kenyan Muslims, we can't afford to help them, we'll give more money to dog shelters than these raggedy ass refugees, Jordan (which can't even supply drinking water to the 500,000 + refugees) is on the border, they can fuckin deal with it. Why doesn't Lebanon, or Saudi Arabia, or Irag, why don't their goddamn raghead neighbors do something, Keerist, we've done enough, what side should we support anyway, sure can't support peace and stability for them frickin ragheads, they'd just rise up and blow up more get togethers of us decent Americans. Oh look, cute pictures of a Squirel! The weather is next after these brief messages.

 

Buried within that attempt to seem intelligent was is actually a good question: "Why don't we do something?"

 

The place is ethically even more complex than Iraq. Try "Lebanon on steroids" as a google. It is also large and well armed. Talking another operation on the scale of Iraq, and the Powell Doctrine is back in vogue, which has been embellished with The Great General Dave's Commentary: "How does this end?"

 

 

We need to restart development on the Cobalt bomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100,000? dead, 1,500,000? refugees, ?,???,??? "internally displaced" and the psychopath says it's "ethically complex"? I'm sorry, misery on that level must be prevented from occurring whenever, where ever. I would much rather be ethically correct than hide behind bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100,000? dead, 1,500,000? refugees, ?,???,??? "internally displaced" and the psychopath says it's "ethically complex"? I'm sorry, misery on that level must be prevented from occurring whenever, where ever. I would much rather be ethically correct than hide behind bullshit.

So you're going on record saying we should militarily intervene?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100,000? dead, 1,500,000? refugees, ?,???,??? "internally displaced" and the psychopath says it's "ethically complex"? I'm sorry, misery on that level must be prevented from occurring whenever, where ever. I would much rather be ethically correct than hide behind bullshit.

 

It's ethically complex only for those who can see that our intervention might do more harm than good. This leads to the subject of Syria's ethnic complexity, which my "Lebanon on steroids" hint was designed to clue you in on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

100,000? dead, 1,500,000? refugees, ?,???,??? "internally displaced" and the psychopath says it's "ethically complex"? I'm sorry, misery on that level must be prevented from occurring whenever, where ever. I would much rather be ethically correct than hide behind bullshit.

 

It's ethically complex only for those who can see that our intervention might do more harm than good. This leads to the subject of Syria's ethnic complexity, which my "Lebanon on steroids" hint was designed to clue you in on.

 

To go back to the original question, since we don't know which side to be on why do we need to draw a line? If we do, what does it mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100,000? dead, 1,500,000? refugees, ?,???,??? "internally displaced" and the psychopath says it's "ethically complex"? I'm sorry, misery on that level must be prevented from occurring whenever, where ever. I would much rather be ethically correct than hide behind bullshit.

So where are your tears for the Lybian people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

We should let them stew in their own juice. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100,000? dead, 1,500,000? refugees, ?,???,??? "internally displaced" and the psychopath says it's "ethically complex"? I'm sorry, misery on that level must be prevented from occurring whenever, where ever. I would much rather be ethically correct than hide behind bullshit.

Volunteers currently being accepted, no experience required. OJT and weapons furnished.

 

You're welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

100,000? dead, 1,500,000? refugees, ?,???,??? "internally displaced" and the psychopath says it's "ethically complex"? I'm sorry, misery on that level must be prevented from occurring whenever, where ever. I would much rather be ethically correct than hide behind bullshit.

So you're going on record saying we should militarily intervene?

Too late, "we" already are......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

100,000? dead, 1,500,000? refugees, ?,???,??? "internally displaced" and the psychopath says it's "ethically complex"? I'm sorry, misery on that level must be prevented from occurring whenever, where ever. I would much rather be ethically correct than hide behind bullshit.

Volunteers currently being accepted, no experience required. OJT and weapons furnished.

 

You're welcome.

 

Oh there's no need for that. Those refugee camps need all the help they can get. There will probably be getting fuller before they start getting emptier too. He can contribute to reducing the misery in other ways.

 

The government is going to start on Aleppo next, sure as shit.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22828142

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to set up a limited NFZ to ground Assad's air force and level the playing field a bit.

Um, you just finished spending pages crapping on in the other thread about how level playing fields lead to more casualties.

Sounds to me like you are, in fact, wanting to pick a winner.

Or do you just want do see lots of Syrians killed for some reason?

At least that way - the air forces aren't bombing the civilian population like they are now.

Cite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

100,000? dead, 1,500,000? refugees, ?,???,??? "internally displaced" and the psychopath says it's "ethically complex"? I'm sorry, misery on that level must be prevented from occurring whenever, where ever. I would much rather be ethically correct than hide behind bullshit.

So you're going on record saying we should militarily intervene?

 

Too late, "we" already are......

Cite.

 

Include reference to US forces shooting at something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I say US forces were doing the shooting dipshit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I say US forces were doing the shooting dipshit?

This is a US-based site, populated by primarily US citizens, in a thread talking about US responses to the events in Syria.

 

If you want to make "we" mean something else, you should probably say who it is, rather than play not-so-clever games.

 

Dipshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A VERY interesting read about the assessment of establishing a NFZ in Syria. Pretty well balanced article given the source, if you ask me.

 

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2013/March%202013/0313syria.aspx

 

It's also significantly bumpy-er. This makes it much easier to hide guys with MANPADs. We will be going in to pick up downed pilots with every damned thing that we might feel we might need to get that done, and it's much more likely they will be dropping into crowded places in Syria.

 

 

If we want to do it, o-tay, but we shouldn't kid ourselves. A NFZ is an act of war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than post individual cites..... I'm just going to post the google page (1st of the 4.9 million hits) when doing a google search for "Syrian air force bombing civilians". There's even videos too.

Weak.

 

So if we ignore all the links based off the HRW report in April, there are two links of interest.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/10/18/a-syrian-air-force-pilot-explains-why-he-bombed-civilians/

We have an Al-Jazeera interview with a crashed pilot - no discussion about what was being bombed. (last year).

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/world/middleeast/syria-uses-cluster-bombs-to-attack-as-many-civilians-as-possible.html?_r=0

We have an accusation of using cluster weapons (which I assume you are not complaining about) in a village full of civilians. The article then goes on to say that a senior leader of the FSA, and refers to one of the struck buildings as "a school where some of Haji Marea’s fighters are based". (also last year).

 

So, where's this massacre? What happened to the "now" part of your claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes just like Saddam had WMDs and let's not forget Kadafi's systematic raping..... Duh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A VERY interesting read about the assessment of establishing a NFZ in Syria. Pretty well balanced article given the source, if you ask me.

 

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2013/March%202013/0313syria.aspx

 

It's also significantly bumpy-er. This makes it much easier to hide guys with MANPADs. We will be going in to pick up downed pilots with every damned thing that we might feel we might need to get that done, and it's much more likely they will be dropping into crowded places in Syria.

 

 

If we want to do it, o-tay, but we shouldn't kid ourselves. A NFZ is an act of war.

 

 

 

But yes, a NFZ is an act of war. And?

A few things:

 

Having entered the conflict on the side of the rebels, we can't tolerate any other result but Assad going down. They will ask for more and more. "That artillery is slaughtering us!" "Those mortars!" "That guy over on Feisal St, took my kids lunch money!"

 

Assad would be the new hero of the ME for fighting the Great Satan, which lowers the status for rebel support among the Syrian population. Lowers the status for the regional nations supporting the rebels, and raises the status for the supporters of Assad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A few things:

 

Having entered the conflict on the side of the rebels, we can't tolerate any other result but Assad going down. They will ask for more and more. "That artillery is slaughtering us!" "Those mortars!" "That guy over on Feisal St, took my kids lunch money!"

 

Assad would be the new hero of the ME for fighting the Great Satan, which lowers the status for rebel support among the Syrian population. Lowers the status for the regional nations supporting the rebels, and raises the status for the supporters of Assad.

 

I dunno about your second one. I don't get there is a lot of support for Assad within the arab world or even the region, outside of his alawite sect, a few other scattered sects in Syria, Hezbo and Iran. None of which particularily likes the west much anyway. Most of the rest of the arab world has aligned pretty clearly with the rebels: Saudi, Quatar, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt, etc. Iraq is the big wild card here - not sure who they will align with if anyone. I think they are as split as Syria is.

 

And I don't buy the support for the rebs will fall because the great satan is helping them, given that they've been begging for our help for two years. In fact I see both external arab and internal factions in Syria being pissed at the west for sitting this out for so long while the people inside are getting slaughtered.

 

As I said, I'm torn on this one. I personally would have no heartburn sitting on the sidelines with popcorn and beer watching the show play out. But the idea of Iran, Russia and Hezbo all losing a key strategic ally in the region is pretty close to worth the price of admission to the front row.

 

I think the country who is the most nervous about assad falling is Israel. I think they prefer the enemy they know over the one they don't. Sure Hezbo is weaker as a result and the jews can't help but like that. But I think the resulting power vacuum and the various fundie factions that might come to power in Assad's place rightly worries them. I don't think there is any assurance that a moderate rebel faction gets the tiller when assad goes.

 

Craziness!

Of course, it wouldn't be presented to us like that (lunch money), he will be the 2nd in command of something we don't like. Al Qaeda, Quds, "reality TV" producer...maybe.

 

 

It's all the minorities, not just Alawites. Christians, Druze, well-to-do, educated Sunni's. Looking to me (right now, and it's hard to be sure about anything) that a heck of a lot of Sunni's are abandoning these rebels after experiencing life under their rule, and welcoming their removal in the areas they are taking back.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's official Obama says red line crossed.

 

Hopefully we lead from behind again. The troubling thing to me is that instability in Syria will strengthen the hand of Israel in the region.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we need to get Kissenger on this. What is the US' strategic priority?

 

We've got several allies in the region. Iraq, Turkey, Israel, Jordan. So maybe it's stability of existing allies? Which means dealing with refugees better than the palestinians were dealt with.

 

Unless there is clear strategic need to overthrow Assad, I see no reason to spend military blood and treasure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need this NOW. It will help get the immigration bill passed without anybody reading it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The time has come to activate the La-Z-Boy Warrior Division and get them moving to solve another country's problems. No more dithering, Obummer! Send in the professionals!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah jeeze..not this shit again.. Conflicting reports of what aid this means...as in arms or not. Have to wait for some more info.

 

I think it's just going to prolong the conflict. Hope I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The time has come to activate the La-Z-Boy Warrior Division and get them moving to solve another country's problems. No more dithering, Obummer! Send in the professionals!

Syrious inquiries only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah jeeze..not this shit again.. Conflicting reports of what aid this means...as in arms or not. Have to wait for some more info.

 

I think it's just going to prolong the conflict. Hope I'm wrong.

 

 

I would have thought a month and a half was enough time for the administration and military to draw up contingency plans in case Syria crossed that red line.

 

Maybe we're just making it up as we go along and the conflict will be over before any US action is taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obummer, sequester hits hard....

 

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama authorized his administration to provide arms to moderate rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, according to officials briefed on the decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. . . and the conflict will be over before any US action is taken.

Hopefully!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ah jeeze..not this shit again.. Conflicting reports of what aid this means...as in arms or not. Have to wait for some more info.

 

I think it's just going to prolong the conflict. Hope I'm wrong.

 

 

I would have thought a month and a half was enough time for the administration and military to draw up contingency plans in case Syria crossed that red line.

 

Maybe we're just making it up as we go along and the conflict will be over before any US action is taken.

 

What should we do in Syria?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ah jeeze..not this shit again.. Conflicting reports of what aid this means...as in arms or not. Have to wait for some more info.

 

I think it's just going to prolong the conflict. Hope I'm wrong.

 

 

I would have thought a month and a half was enough time for the administration and military to draw up contingency plans in case Syria crossed that red line.

 

Maybe we're just making it up as we go along and the conflict will be over before any US action is taken.

 

What should we do in Syria?

 

Change games. Don't draw lines and play hopscotch. It's a bit late for that now.

 

I kinda figger somebody around there should have figured out the game before the change was called for. If you want to change games, you need to know the one you're playing and what you want to change to. Failing that, there was plenty of time to develop some sort of approach. It doesn't seem evident right now. Add arms? Oh, just what they need. We'll probably bomb some shit, throw a few hellfires off a drone.

 

Maybe somebody could let us know who we want to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ah jeeze..not this shit again.. Conflicting reports of what aid this means...as in arms or not. Have to wait for some more info.

 

I think it's just going to prolong the conflict. Hope I'm wrong.

 

 

I would have thought a month and a half was enough time for the administration and military to draw up contingency plans in case Syria crossed that red line.

 

Maybe we're just making it up as we go along and the conflict will be over before any US action is taken.

 

What should we do in Syria?

 

 

Like Obama, I have a line that they have to cross before I make my plans known. Even then I'll want to quadruple confirm that line was crossed and still be given additional time to consider my options. As for now, I'm a firm proponent of using very threatening rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now that we hear that Obummer plans to arm the rebels, I wonder how many of our men of principle will be joining me in saying what I've said all along: not a good idea. We should stay the hell out of it.

 

Obummer is doing what you want, Mongo! You should be happy about that, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Damned If You Do"

"Damned If You Don't"

 

Alex, what are the official wingnut answers to Obama's foreign policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go on record to say it's a mistake, with the principle of "no matter what we do there, no matter how good our intentions, it will fuck it up more than it already is"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia doesn't buy our evidence. Says we have a credibility issue regarding WMDs. How did that happen?

 

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-u-claims-syrian-chemical-arms-unconvincing-125618388.html

 

This is almost like the proxy wars of the olden days - Russia arms Assad, we arm the rebels.

 

 

 

I don't have the insights that the Administration has WRT all the dynamics at play here. The big picture is much more complicated than any of us can fathom. I can see an up side of stopping the killing and making sure this does not become a massive regional conflict. I can see a downside of arming radical Islamists who will gladly accept our help and then turn on us in a heartbeat if they take control.

 

I'll draw the line at no boots on the ground. However this plays out, I don't want to see years and billions going into more nation building. Let someone else take care of the back end.

 

Other than that, I'm reluctantly trusting the Obama administrastion to do what needs to be done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

You're going to step away and ignore it.

 

I see nothing but escalation from both sides.

 

THIS is not our business.

 

We cannot afford to be in this war.

 

If the Sunnis which to fight the Shiites - its not about us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Sunnis which to fight the Shiites - its not about us.

 

To paraphrase the famous philosopher, Barbra Sreisand

 

Muslims

Killing other muslims

are the happiest people

in the world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

sorry about the typo.

 

Not our fight, not our problem. STFO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are you going to stop the fighting without boots on the ground?

 

Selling arms to the govt to support that industry maybe?

 

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grumps - how's the press in Indo playing this? US rabble rousing? Starting something? I can't imagine it's playing well, but I can never figure out how to predict reactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing front page about Syria. There's plenty about the Rohingya (sp)

 

There's domestic stuff going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia doesn't buy our evidence. Says we have a credibility issue regarding WMDs. How did that happen?

 

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-u-claims-syrian-chemical-arms-unconvincing-125618388.html

 

Expecting Russia will agree Assad must go can't be the intent. They might lean on him to gather up all his chem and hand it over though. Assad would be smart to do that. The stuff is a net liability. Get rid of it, it's not going to save ya.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused. Evidence of chemical weapons in Syria leans toward use by the insurgents not by Assad. It was the insurgents who killed Syrian regular army soldiers with chlorine gas in March, members of Syria's wacko Al Nusra, were busted in Turkey last month holding Sarin gas, and the United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry said that there is strong concrete suspicions, but not incontrovertible proof of the use of Sarin gas by rebels.

All I know is that we've been down this road before, I want that incontrovertible proof and it had better be very, very good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

This time it's different - there's a guy with a (D) next to his name as Prezzident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having been lied to by a former occupant of the WH, I'm not inclined to give his replacement the same latitude I gave his predecessor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great! another no win war to piss away our children future on. We have no dog in this fight. Bring ALL the troops home NOW and let those fuckers sort it out themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama Signals Start of US War in Syria

friday june 14, 2013

 

The Obama Administration’s sudden announcement last night that it has discovered the Syrian government used chemical weapons and thus crossed the “red line” is pretty unconvincing.

 

The Administration provided no evidence, no new information, and no explanation of why the intelligence community’s assessment of just three months ago that chemical weapons had not been used by the Syrian government has changed so dramatically.

 

What changed? They won’t tell us. The Administration spokesman who made the announcement would only say that they have a “high confidence in that assessment given multiple, independent streams of information.” What are those streams of information? They won’t tell us.

 

It reminds me of a decade ago, when another presidential spokesman came forward to tell us:

 

“But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.”

 

That was President Bush’s spokesman Ari Fleischer speaking about Iraq in early 2003.

 

Those who have been shown this evidence are not too impressed. An aide to Russian President Putin said today that the US side “tried to present us with information on the use of chemical weapons by the regime, but frankly we thought that it was not convincing.”

 

The Administration has announced that based on this new information, it would begin providing weapons to the Syrian opposition. This is of course another stretch of the truth, as it is well known that the Administration has been facilitating the transfer of weapons to the Syrian rebels for quite some time. The CIA is training the rebels in Jordan. The New York Times and other major media have reported on this numerous times.

 

But it is true that President Obama is taking us further toward war in Syria. And it is true that again Congress is taking no role in the matter, beyond the usual cheerleading by warhawks like McCain and Lindsey Graham.

 

Perhaps the Obama administration, seeing the multitude of scandals that have broken over the past several weeks, has decided to take a page from Bill Clinton, who famously bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan on August 20, 1998, just three days after he was forced to appear at a grand jury hearing investigating the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

 

Written by Ron Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ahh, the old aspirin factory. Thanks for reminding me again why I didn't support or vote for Ron Paul. On the bright side: Obama has cured the USA of Islamaphobia. Hasn't been an outbreak in some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is handling this well. Make vague threats but do nothing. We need to resist the Israeli firsters who want to get us involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vague threats but do nothing. Yep, his policy for addressing issues has at least been consistent.

 

All that's missing is the Obummermites blaming Bush, I'm sure that'll be along shortly though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama Signals Start of US War in Syria

friday june 14, 2013

 

The Obama Administration’s sudden announcement last night that it has discovered the Syrian government used chemical weapons and thus crossed the “red line” is pretty unconvincing.

 

The Administration provided no evidence, no new information, and no explanation of why the intelligence community’s assessment of just three months ago that chemical weapons had not been used by the Syrian government has changed so dramatically.

 

What changed? They won’t tell us. The Administration spokesman who made the announcement would only say that they have a “high confidence in that assessment given multiple, independent streams of information.” What are those streams of information? They won’t tell us.

 

It reminds me of a decade ago, when another presidential spokesman came forward to tell us:

 

“But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.”

 

That was President Bush’s spokesman Ari Fleischer speaking about Iraq in early 2003.

 

Those who have been shown this evidence are not too impressed. An aide to Russian President Putin said today that the US side “tried to present us with information on the use of chemical weapons by the regime, but frankly we thought that it was not convincing.”

 

The Administration has announced that based on this new information, it would begin providing weapons to the Syrian opposition. This is of course another stretch of the truth, as it is well known that the Administration has been facilitating the transfer of weapons to the Syrian rebels for quite some time. The CIA is training the rebels in Jordan. The New York Times and other major media have reported on this numerous times.

 

But it is true that President Obama is taking us further toward war in Syria. And it is true that again Congress is taking no role in the matter, beyond the usual cheerleading by warhawks like McCain and Lindsey Graham.

 

Perhaps the Obama administration, seeing the multitude of scandals that have broken over the past several weeks, has decided to take a page from Bill Clinton, who famously bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan on August 20, 1998, just three days after he was forced to appear at a grand jury hearing investigating the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

 

Written by Ron Paul

 

 

Style doesn't match Ron's. "Written by Ron Paul" indicates the clown who wrote was also an idiot.

 

Nevertheless it is accurate in the very small-scale assistance having been in existence for some time now. There were reports in the Turkish press about comments, from totally gob-smacked FSA "soldiers", of naive expectations from US-SF's that they would first apply their newly acquired skilz on Al Nursra, and then attack the government.

 

I'm beginning to suspect this is about trying to get a bargaining chip for John Kerry. He was laughed out of Putins office, and man, that must have hurt. Johns vanity is also a US one in general: The US is never irrelevant! Never!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is handling this well. Make vague threats but do nothing. We need to resist the Israeli firsters who want to get us involved.

 

You can not be serious. Did Ben take over your keyboard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vague threats but do nothing. Yep, his policy for addressing issues has at least been consistent.

 

All that's missing is the Obummermites blaming Bush, I'm sure that'll be along shortly though.

 

They should be left to figure it out for themselves.

Or, your country can take care of it.

 

Helicopter parents suck.

Helicopter countries (USA) have to be worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one 'dithers' long enough, the situation spirals completely out of control. I can just see the video games coming out in time for Christmas. American Special Forces fighting with Al Qaeda against Assad's tribal fighters and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Fuckit, it's hopeless. Neutron bomb time in the name of ending the suffering?

 

Iran sends 4,000 elite troops to support Assad. We send 'small arms and ammunition' to the 'moderate' forces fighting Assad, Hezbollah, the Revolutionary Guards, the 'extremist' rebels, and who knows who else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Obama is handling this well. Make vague threats but do nothing. We need to resist the Israeli firsters who want to get us involved.

 

You can not be serious. Did Ben take over your keyboard?

you should have bolded the second sentence instead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one 'dithers' long enough, the situation spirals completely out of control. I can just see the video games coming out in time for Christmas. American Special Forces fighting with Al Qaeda against Assad's tribal fighters and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Fuckit, it's hopeless. Neutron bomb time in the name of ending the suffering?

 

Iran sends 4,000 elite troops to support Assad. We send 'small arms and ammunition' to the 'moderate' forces fighting Assad, Hezbollah, the Revolutionary Guards, the 'extremist' rebels, and who knows who else.

Smart we need to stay out. Ideally we get Russia to take Syria's chemical weapons in exchange we allow Assad to win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now that we hear that Obummer plans to arm the rebels, I wonder how many of our men of principle will be joining me in saying what I've said all along: not a good idea. We should stay the hell out of it.

 

Obummer is doing what you want, Mongo! You should be happy about that, right?

 

 

Agreed here!! But the Repubtards in Congress want him to do even more?? WTF?? Not our fight. Tribes have been killing each other off for centuries; not our problem....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one 'dithers' long enough, the situation spirals completely out of control. I can just see the video games coming out in time for Christmas. American Special Forces fighting with Al Qaeda against Assad's tribal fighters and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Fuckit, it's hopeless. Neutron bomb time in the name of ending the suffering?

 

Iran sends 4,000 elite troops to support Assad. We send 'small arms and ammunition' to the 'moderate' forces fighting Assad, Hezbollah, the Revolutionary Guards, the 'extremist' rebels, and who knows who else.

 

They appear to have initiated their re-taking Aleppo operation this weekend, which is a couple weeks before expected. Their staging up at the airfield started just a week an a half ago. They might lose their air support, so they must move while they still have it.

 

Iran knows this is a time when moral in Assad's forces needs tending to. The citizen militias of Christians, Druze, and Alawi are reported to be dedicated, but are still very green and incompetent. The Hezzi's say they are rank beginners.

 

Where are the Israelis? Didn't they want a war with Iran?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If one 'dithers' long enough, the situation spirals completely out of control. I can just see the video games coming out in time for Christmas. American Special Forces fighting with Al Qaeda against Assad's tribal fighters and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Fuckit, it's hopeless. Neutron bomb time in the name of ending the suffering?

 

Iran sends 4,000 elite troops to support Assad. We send 'small arms and ammunition' to the 'moderate' forces fighting Assad, Hezbollah, the Revolutionary Guards, the 'extremist' rebels, and who knows who else.

What should we be doing instead?

Continue to make brave statements while cowering under the bed? Let the death count spiral upwards past a 100,000? Create more and more refugees? Have less and less infrastructure and livable housing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If one 'dithers' long enough, the situation spirals completely out of control. I can just see the video games coming out in time for Christmas. American Special Forces fighting with Al Qaeda against Assad's tribal fighters and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Fuckit, it's hopeless. Neutron bomb time in the name of ending the suffering?

 

Iran sends 4,000 elite troops to support Assad. We send 'small arms and ammunition' to the 'moderate' forces fighting Assad, Hezbollah, the Revolutionary Guards, the 'extremist' rebels, and who knows who else.

What should we be doing instead?

Continue to make brave statements while cowering under the bed? Let the death count spiral upwards past a 100,000? Create more and more refugees? Have less and less infrastructure and livable housing?

why is that our problem? what is our (not israels) interest in having the rebels displace Assad?

 

I have schooled you again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If one 'dithers' long enough, the situation spirals completely out of control. I can just see the video games coming out in time for Christmas. American Special Forces fighting with Al Qaeda against Assad's tribal fighters and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Fuckit, it's hopeless. Neutron bomb time in the name of ending the suffering?

 

Iran sends 4,000 elite troops to support Assad. We send 'small arms and ammunition' to the 'moderate' forces fighting Assad, Hezbollah, the Revolutionary Guards, the 'extremist' rebels, and who knows who else.

What should we be doing instead?

Continue to make brave statements while cowering under the bed? Let the death count spiral upwards past a 100,000? Create more and more refugees? Have less and less infrastructure and livable housing?

I think we should stay out of it.

 

What do you think we should do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If one 'dithers' long enough, the situation spirals completely out of control. I can just see the video games coming out in time for Christmas. American Special Forces fighting with Al Qaeda against Assad's tribal fighters and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Fuckit, it's hopeless. Neutron bomb time in the name of ending the suffering?

 

Iran sends 4,000 elite troops to support Assad. We send 'small arms and ammunition' to the 'moderate' forces fighting Assad, Hezbollah, the Revolutionary Guards, the 'extremist' rebels, and who knows who else.

What should we be doing instead?

Continue to make brave statements while cowering under the bed? Let the death count spiral upwards past a 100,000? Create more and more refugees? Have less and less infrastructure and livable housing?

I don't think we can afford to be involved in the Syrian mess.

 

What do you think the US should do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An example of what is reported to be fairly typical in GB right now. Scan the article, and then look at the comments.

 

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2013/06/on-syria-cameron-should-be-the-heir-to-blair.html

 

 

Cameron, and all the Tory pundits who try to cheer-lead for getting involved, are getting hammered. Putin scored huge with that cannibal remark, meaning he is now far more in tune with British public opinion than Cameron is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen, there will be no fighting in the War Room!

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-18/pentagon-shoots-down-kerry-s-syria-airstrike-plan.html

 

 

Twenty years ago, in a debate over the war in Bosnia, Madeleine Albright, then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, issued a challenge to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell. Albright wanted the U.S. to confront an aggressive Serbia; Powell and the Pentagon were hesitant. Albright grew frustrated: “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” Albright asked. Powell later said that he thought Albright was going to give him an aneurysm.

 

Flash-forward to this past Wednesday. At a principals meeting in the White House situation room, Secretary of State John Kerry began arguing, vociferously, for immediate U.S. airstrikes against airfields under the control of Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime -- specifically, those fields it has used to launch chemical weapons raids against rebel forces.

It was at this point that the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the usually mild-mannered Army General Martin Dempsey, spoke up, loudly. According to several sources, Dempsey threw a series of brushback pitches at Kerry, demanding to know just exactly what the post-strike plan would be and pointing out that the State Department didn’t fully grasp the complexity of such an operation.

Dempsey informed Kerry that the Air Force could not simply drop a few bombs, or fire a few missiles, at targets inside Syria: To be safe, the U.S. would have to neutralize Syria’s integrated air-defense system, an operation that would require 700 or more sorties. At a time when the U.S. military is exhausted, and when sequestration is ripping into the Pentagon budget, Dempsey is said to have argued that a demand by the State Department for precipitous military action in a murky civil war wasn’t welcome.

Military Wariness

Officials with knowledge of the meeting say that Kerry gave as good as he got, and that the discussion didn’t reach aneurysm-producing levels. But it was, in diplomatic parlance, a full and frank vetting of the profound differences between State and Defense on Syria. Dempsey was adamant: Without much of an entrance strategy, without anything resembling an exit strategy, and without even a clear-eyed understanding of the consequences of an American airstrike, the Pentagon would be extremely reluctant to get behind Kerry’s plan.

As we know now, the Pentagon’s position is in sync with President Barack Obama’s. The outcome of the meeting last week was to formalize a decision made weeks ago to supply the more moderate elements of the Syrian opposition with small arms and ammunition. The assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies that Assad had used chemical weapons against small pockets of rebels -- confirming those made several months earlier by the intelligence agencies of U.S. friends in Europe and the Middle East -- forced the administration to make a gesture of support for the opposition.

Members of the White House national security team, who tend to be more hawkish than Obama or Dempsey (though not as quite as militant as Kerry), had been arguing that, in the words of Tony Blinken, the deputy national security adviser, “superpowers don’t bluff.” Once Obama had drawn a red line around chemical weapons, the White House had no choice but to take some sort of action.

Blinken was clever to use the word “bluff” in his arguments to the president, implicitly linking his posture on Syria to his position on Iran’s nuclear program. Last year, in an interview with me on the subject of Iran, Obama said, “As president of the United States, I don’t bluff.” On Iran, he has lived up to his words, but he was in danger -- and remains in danger -- of being seen as a bluffer on Syria.

No Bluffing

What is so odd about Dempsey’s adamant opposition to Kerry’s aggressive proposals is that it hasn’t previously been made public. Obama told Charlie Rose this week that he is worried about sliding down the slippery slope toward greater intervention in Syria. Having Dempsey openly in his corner would be useful to him, but the administration hasn’t made hay over the Pentagon’s opposition to airstrikes. (When I asked the Pentagon for official comment, Dempsey’s spokesman would only say that he would not “discuss classified internal deliberations,” though he went on to say that the National Security Council principals “routinely debate a wide range of options to include how the military can and should support a comprehensive, regional approach to this conflict.”)

One senior administration official explained it this way: The White House doesn’t want Dempsey to make an enthusiastic case on “Meet the Press” against intervention, just in case Obama one day decides to follow Kerry’s advice and get more deeply involved. At that point, Dempsey's arguments against greater involvement could come back to haunt the administration.

The decision to provide small arms to the Syrian opposition has made no one happy -- not the rebels, who understand that these quite-possibly ineffective weapons will take many months to reach them; not Kerry, who, while arguing that these shipments may become a “force multiplier” in the conflict, thinks that only a show of American air power will convince Assad and his Hezbollah allies that the U.S. is making a serious attempt to level a playing field that has been tilting their way for some time; and not the Pentagon, which thinks that Obama, despite saying that he is wary of the slippery slope, might be pushed down that slope anyway, by interventionists on his team or by events on the ground.

It is possible, even for those of us who have been inclined toward intervention, to have a great deal of sympathy for Dempsey’s position. There are those in the Pentagon who think that the State Department has romanticized the Syrian opposition. What diplomats see as a civil war featuring bands of poorly armed moderates struggling to free themselves from the grip of an evil dictator, the generals see as a religious war between Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. Why would the U.S. risk taking sides in a battle between two loathed terror organizations? Memories of Iraq, too, are fresh in the minds of Dempsey and his colleagues.

On the other hand, a Kerry partisan told me, U.S. intervention in Syria would not necessarily have to look like U.S. intervention in Iraq. When I mentioned the Albright-Powell exchange of 20 years ago, he pointed out something obvious: President Bill Clinton eventually decided to use air power in the Balkans. And it brought the Serbian government to its knees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes you do.... :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

If one 'dithers' long enough, the situation spirals completely out of control. I can just see the video games coming out in time for Christmas. American Special Forces fighting with Al Qaeda against Assad's tribal fighters and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Fuckit, it's hopeless. Neutron bomb time in the name of ending the suffering?

 

Iran sends 4,000 elite troops to support Assad. We send 'small arms and ammunition' to the 'moderate' forces fighting Assad, Hezbollah, the Revolutionary Guards, the 'extremist' rebels, and who knows who else.

What should we be doing instead?

Continue to make brave statements while cowering under the bed? Let the death count spiral upwards past a 100,000? Create more and more refugees? Have less and less infrastructure and livable housing?

 

Why are you answering a question with a question? You obviously disagree with the current Course of action (COA) by the Prez. I'm asking you directly what YOU think we SHOULD be doing instead. Its a really pretty simple and straighforward question......

Mongo's first sentence is rather ironic and more than a bit hypocritical, is it not, given his reluctance to take a stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No reason to ask anymore, we know the Squirrel, the Jack, and other RWNM parrots will refuse to take a stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

what stand is that?

 

BTW Mark, thanks for posting that,,, good for Dempsey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

yes you do.... :ph34r:

 

What a clever retort, for a civil servant...

edited for accuracy.

about as civil as civil as the "civil" war.... :ph34r: war is a racket.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Then we simply pull them from South Korea and wherever else they are where there's a country that can do this for themselves.

 

For that matter, doesn't Saudi have an air force? Egypt? Jordan? Gulf States? Let them have a Sunni Air Force fly the No Fly Zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good lord no, how can we be the biggest, baddest ass mercenary force in the world if we let the client states do their own dirty work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

I'd say I'm just fine with that. Same goes for South Korea and Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, me too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

I'd rather see that money spent here on the domestic economy and social benefits just like the Europeans have for fifty years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then we simply pull them from South Korea and wherever else they are where there's a country that can do this for themselves.

 

For that matter, doesn't Saudi have an air force? Egypt? Jordan? Gulf States? Let them have a Sunni Air Force fly the No Fly Zone.

I suspect a lot of the AIPAC crowd are pushing Obama on this, but I'm not convinced Bibi is pushing for them to do it. They might be doing their own "thinking". Nagging for the US military to at war in the ME may have become reflexive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interesting thing in all of this is that the Air Force is in no position to go in and kick the door down on Assad's IAD's right now. Sequestration has all but castrated the active duty AF. 33 Air Force Fighter Sq's have been grounded, they literally have not turned a wheel, since March or Apr. My former Squadron in NC, has been grounded since the sequester was announced. And they are a front line attack Sq. Or were.....

 

The ones that are flying are a shell of their usual capability. Skills in that high tech a profession literally can atrophy in a few days or a week of not flying. About the only ones up to speed are the units that are already deployed. Unless we pulled every airplane from Afghanistan, S Korea, and other areas where they are actually doing daily REAL missions - there ain't no one left to do a NFZ.

 

The training units are flying more than the combat units. Its madness.

 

The AF Chiefs new uniform doesn't inspire confidence.

 

33kvvow.jpg

 

Keystone-Kop/Kaptain Kangaroo mash-up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites