Syria's Assad used chemical weapons on his own people

[awepittance]

There is also a drastic difference between Libya and Syria in the fact that Syria has been supported by Russia ever since the cold war. They are essentially a cold-war left over nation state, one of the ones that Wolfowitz and the Bush doctrine aimed to 'clean up' as a way to take out previous states that supported russia's side in the cold war. It will be far more difficult to invade them without overtly defying Russia.

I also doubt that we're just sitting on the sidelines right now, i'd bet money on already un going CIA or other stealth interventionism.

[joshuatxuk]

I also doubt that we're just sitting on the sidelines right now, i'd bet money on already un going CIA or other stealth interventionism.

 

I always assume that, at the very least they are assisting with the weapon supply and logistics of the opposition, keeping tabs on factions, advising the opposition on pysch ops. We've officially had various adviser detachments (i.e. Green Berets and other special forces trainers) in Jordan the entire time and Turkey is a NATO state with US military personal regularly stationed and manning defense systems there.

[joshuatxuk]

Can't help but note the timing of the chemical weapon use being confirmed as "official" and all of the enhanced rhetoric surrounding it comes right after the Snowden NSA leak.

[Guest]

yep

[may be rude]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE97K0EL20130827

 

 

 

Western powers have told the Syrian opposition to expect military action against Assad's forces soon, according to sources who attended a meeting between envoys and the Syrian National Coalition in Istanbul.

Amid a quickening drumbeat of preparations, U.S. Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said American forces in the region were "ready to go" if President Barack Obama gives the order, as intelligence agencies assembled what is sure to be final confirmation of the Syrian government's culpability for Wednesday's poison gas attack near Damascus.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said it would "fanciful" to think that anyone other than Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces was responsible for the chemical attack, which killed hundreds of people as they slept.

Obama has yet to make a final decision on the U.S. response, Carney said, but left little doubt that it would involve military action. He insisted, however, that Washington was not intent on "regime change," signaling that any military strikes would be limited and not meant to topple Assad.

The British military was also drafting plans. Prime Minister David Cameron, anxious, like Obama, not to emulate the entanglements in wars in Afghanistan and Iraqi that beset their predecessors, said any strikes would be "specific" so as not to drag the allies deeper into the Syrian civil war now in its third year.

Cameron recalled parliament for a debate on Syria on Thursday.

U. N. chemical weapons investigators put off until Wednesday a second trip to the rebel-held suburbs of Damascus, where activists say hundreds of civilians died a week ago.

While evidence of chemical warfare could bolster an argument for intervention at the United Nations in the face of likely Russian and Chinese opposition, Western leaders and the Arab League have already declared Assad guilty.

Ahmad Jarba, president of the rebel Syrian National Coalition, met envoys from 11 countries at an Istanbul hotel, including the U.S. ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford. The rebel leaders proposed targets for cruise missiles and bombing.

One participant said: "The opposition was told in clear terms that action to deter further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime could come as early as in the next few days."

Planning appears to focus on missile or air strikes. There is little public support in Western countries for troops to invade Syria.

"We have moved assets in place to be able to fulfill and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take," Hagel said.

The precise timing of possible military action remained unclear, but it is certain to wait for an official U.S. intelligence report blaming Assad's government for the chemical attack. The findings, considered merely a formality at this point, will be released this week, U.S. officials said.

Under growing pressure for U.S. action on Syria Obama is expected to keep close watch on the situation there, but he will go ahead with a speech on Wednesday at Washington's Lincoln Memorial marking the 50th anniversary of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream speech."

MOOD IN DAMASCUS

Syria's government, backed by Iran, denies gassing its own people and has vowed to defend itself, but residents of Damascus are growing anxious.

"I've always been a supporter of foreign intervention, but now that it seems like a reality, I've been worrying that my family could be hurt or killed," said a woman named Zaina, who opposes Assad. "I'm afraid of a military strike now."

"The big fear is that they'll make the same mistakes they made in Libya and Iraq," said Ziyad, a man in his 50s. "They'll hit civilian targets and then they'll cry that it was by mistake, but we'll get killed in the thousands."

Russia, Assad's main arms supplier, opposes military action and has suggested that rebel forces may have released the poison gas. China's state news agency recalled how flawed intelligence was used to justify the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Firm opposition from permanent members of the U.N. Security Council all but rules out a U.N. mandate of the kind that gave legal backing to NATO air strikes that helped Libyan rebels unseat Muammar Gaddafi two years ago. However, Western officials say they do want to act within international law.

Moscow and Beijing accuse Western powers of using human rights complaints, such as in Libya, to meddle in sovereign states' affairs. White House spokesman Carney insisted: "The options that we are considering are not about regime change.

"They are about responding to a clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons." Although Obama has long said Assad should step down, he is unwilling to commit to making that happen by force. Carney said it was "profoundly in the interests of the United States" to respond to the chemical weapons attack.

In Britain, Cameron told reporters: "This is not about getting involved in a Middle Eastern war or changing our stance in Syria or going further into that conflict. It's about chemical weapons. Their use is wrong and the world shouldn't stand idly by."

]In France, which played a major role in Libya, President Francois Hollande said he was "ready to punish" Assad for using the chemical weapons, citing a 2005 U.N. provision for international action to protect civilians from their own governments.

Similar arguments were used by NATO to bomb Serbia, a Russian ally, after the killing of civilians in Kosovo.

In an indication of support from Arab states that may help Western powers argue the case for an attack against likely U.N. vetoes from Moscow and Beijing, the Arab League issued a statement holding Assad's government responsible for the chemical attack.

Fears of another international conflict in the Middle East affected financial markets. Oil prices hit a six-month high and stocks fell around the world, notably in Turkey, as well as in emerging economies that would suffer from a chill in trade.

The government of Turkey, a NATO member, called for action against Assad for what it called a "crime against humanity."

TOUGH CHOICES

Obama, Cameron and Hollande face questions at home about how a military intervention would end, whether they risk bolstering Assad if he rides out the assault and whether they risk handing power to anti-Western Islamist rebels if Assad were overthrown.

Turmoil in Egypt, where the 2011 uprising inspired Syrians to rebel, has underlined the unpredictability of revolutions. The presence of Islamist militants, including allies of al Qaeda in the Syrian rebel ranks, has given Western leaders pause. They have held back so far from helping Assad's opponents to victory.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem said U.S. strikes would help al Qaeda and called Western leaders "delusional" if they hoped to help the rebels reach a balance of power in Syria.

"We have means of defending ourselves, and we will surprise them with these if necessary," he said. "We will defend ourselves. We will not hesitate to use any means available."

Assad's forces made little or no response to three attacks by Israeli aircraft earlier this year that Israeli officials said disrupted arms flowing from Iran to Lebanon's Hezbollah.

The presence of United Nations experts in Damascus may be a factor holding back international military action. The experts came under fire in government-held territory on Monday before reaching the rebel lines. They interviewed and took samples from survivors, though much evidence may have decayed.

Opposition activists have said at least 500 people, and possibly twice that many, were killed by rockets carrying the nerve gas sarin or something similar. If so, it was the worst chemical weapons attack since Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Iraqi Kurds in 1988.

(Additional reporting by Mariam Karouny in Beirut, Phil Stewart in Bandar, Seri Begawan and Andrew Osborn in London, John Irish in Paris, Timothy Heritage in Moscow, Ben Blanchard in Beijing, Seda Sezer and Daren Butler in Istanbul, Yeganeh Torbati in Dubai, Matt Spetalnick, Roberta Rampton, Steve Holland and Jeff Mason in Washington.; Writing by Matt Spetalnick and Alastair Macdonald)

 

So the western war machine is gearing up to punish Assad. Fucked up as it is that punishment is actually called for in this way, I can kind of see how this course of action is appropriate. You can't let people think they can get away with poison gas attacks, especially on civilians. The precedent of allowing that could easily lead to worse tragedies. Still, this seems like a rather bad direction to take.

[Guest skibby]

16,000+ gun homicides in the USA every year. should the UN invade to liberate america from its own people?

[SR4]

16,000+ gun homicides in the USA every year. should the UN invade to liberate america from its own people?

 

 

this is not an apt comparison. Barack Obama did not order the 16,000+ gun homicides.

[ambermonk]

I think we're in a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" scenario. If we take action, we'll be labeled imperialists. If not, we'll be looking the other way as before and continue to allow Assad to commit war crimes.

[joshuatxuk]

 

16,000+ gun homicides in the USA every year. should the UN invade to liberate america from its own people?

 

 

this is not an apt comparison. Barack Obama did not order the 16,000+ gun homicides.

 

 

as an American I find gun violence and gun culture alarming but I'm also aware that I will go to work tomorrow with millions of others in my community safely and in a stable, organized and civilized manner

 

in other words...do you fucking know what a civil war is? absolute chaos, a breakdown in order and stability, friends and family forced to kill or be killed by each other, at the very least risking being shot, stabbed, tortured, bombed, or assaulted by 50% of the population for simply staying in your own home, assuming it even exists still. thats a far cry, hell, a completely different context than being in a stable industrial nation of 300 million that has 16k gun deaths over a year.

[Jody Dark]

its just another conflict used to destabilize the middle east for globalization. i cant believe people still havent figured that out

[roasty]

oversimplifying a bit

[joshuatxuk]

its just another conflict used to destabilize the middle east for globalization. i cant believe people still havent figured that out

 

how?

 

or like, explain how the implosion of a non-aligned, cold war remnant authoritarian government fits into that?

[ambermonk]

 

 

16,000+ gun homicides in the USA every year. should the UN invade to liberate america from its own people?

 

 

this is not an apt comparison. Barack Obama did not order the 16,000+ gun homicides.

 

 

as an American I find gun violence and gun culture alarming but I'm also aware that I will go to work tomorrow with millions of others in my community safely and in a stable, organized and civilized manner

 

in other words...do you fucking know what a civil war is? absolute chaos, a breakdown in order and stability, friends and family forced to kill or be killed by each other, at the very least risking being shot, stabbed, tortured, bombed, or assaulted by 50% of the population for simply staying in your own home, assuming it even exists still. thats a far cry, hell, a completely different context than being in a stable industrial nation of 300 million that has 16k gun deaths over a year.

 

Skibby that doesn't even make sense. That's like saying you're trying to "liberate" a city by evacuating all who live there. And Joshua, well said. Most of these gun-related deaths occur out of altercations between individuals. They're not genocide by a single regime.

[Jody Dark]

 

its just another conflict used to destabilize the middle east for globalization. i cant believe people still havent figured that out

 

how?

 

or like, explain how the implosion of a non-aligned, cold war remnant authoritarian government fits into that?

 

i cant

[lumpenprol]

instead of sarin, maybe the syrian govt. should distribute mdma. Killing people with kindness and all that.

[ambermonk]

instead of sarin, maybe the syrian govt. should distribute mdma. Killing people with kindness and all that.

[BobDobalina]

badum-tsss!

 

You wanna know what really grinds my gears? John Fucking Kerry calling the use of chemical weapons a "moral obscenity." So I guess the first 100k conflict deaths were just a moral faux-pas, eh?

 

Everyting re US "involvement" is just politicians a-politicking and keeping the mil-ind complex well lubed. Just don't forget, America's Navy is a global force for good.

[joshuatxuk]

 

 

its just another conflict used to destabilize the middle east for globalization. i cant believe people still havent figured that out

 

how?

 

or like, explain how the implosion of a non-aligned, cold war remnant authoritarian government fits into that?

 

i cant

 

 

dats ok

 

also I'm not one to argue that globalization won't be a factor in any future intervention or rebuilding efforts

 

I really don't the US/NATO/UN/etc to do anything beyond what was done in Libya. I'm on the fence about that intervention but I can say it was at least pragmatic as fuck and the cynical realpolitik in me approves that. I was in a heated but worthwhile discussion with my father and he said something I found to be quite insightful and accurate: he thinks Obama's handling of Afghanistan is a disgrace - the president won't commit substantial forces nor will he simply pull out all US military forces, so instead we're losing soldiers left and right with absolutely nothing to show for it. I would hate for Syria to turn into something like that. But he's stalled even a minimal effort off for way too long as well.

 

I can completely understand why many find him so aggravating - he's hopelessly indecisive. At least Bush fucking committed himself to his policy, it's too bad Obama couldn't grow a pair and commit to non-intervention and peaceful efforts. I know covert actions and spying would remain omnipresent, but even a little more transparency and clarity in his goals would be something. His foreign policy has gone from being cautious and moderate to absolutely cryptic and cowardly.

[may be rude]

 

 

 

its just another conflict used to destabilize the middle east for globalization. i cant believe people still havent figured that out

 

how?

 

or like, explain how the implosion of a non-aligned, cold war remnant authoritarian government fits into that?

 

i cant

 

 

dats ok

 

also I'm not one to argue that globalization won't be a factor in any future intervention or rebuilding efforts

 

I really don't the US/NATO/UN/etc to do anything beyond what was done in Libya. I'm on the fence about that intervention but I can say it was at least pragmatic as fuck and the cynical realpolitik in me approves that. I was in a heated but worthwhile discussion with my father and he said something I found to be quite insightful and accurate: he thinks Obama's handling of Afghanistan is a disgrace - the president won't commit substantial forces nor will he simply pull out all US military forces, so instead we're losing soldiers left and right with absolutely nothing to show for it. I would hate for Syria to turn into something like that. But he's stalled even a minimal effort off for way too long as well.

 

I can completely understand why many find him so aggravating - he's hopelessly indecisive. At least Bush fucking committed himself to his policy, it's too bad Obama couldn't grow a pair and commit to non-intervention and peaceful efforts. I know covert actions and spying would remain omnipresent, but even a little more transparency and clarity in his goals would be something. His foreign policy has gone from being cautious and moderate to absolutely cryptic and cowardly.

 

The problem is, how will Assad respond? So far Israel has launched targeted strikes inside Syria about 3 times in the last year or two and I don't think there were responses. However Assad has made numerous warnings against foreign intervention, including saying he would attack Israel if the US attacked. Assad being allied with Hezbollah and Iran, this could ignite a serious war.

[joshuatxuk]

badum-tsss!

 

You wanna know what really grinds my gears? John Fucking Kerry calling the use of chemical weapons a "moral obscenity." So I guess the first 100k conflict deaths were just a moral faux-pas, eh?

 

Everyting re US "involvement" is just politicians a-politicking and keeping the mil-ind complex well lubed. Just don't forget, America's Navy is a global force for good.

 

Yeah I mentioned that to someone today. Chemical weapons are nasty and terrifying but in context it's literally just another weapon. It's an arbitrary excuse to suddenly act like Assad went too far. The reality is those same weapons have been a major reason we haven't had airstrikes - the risk of hitting the stockpiles and inadvertently releasing them or creating a combat situation even more chaotic than now that would let outside agents acquire the weapons. The US normalized relations with Libya and they decommissioned their WMD programs and stockpiles in 2003 and 2004 (Blair and Bush even met with Qaddafi) and well, that made airstrikes a hell of a lot easier in 2011.

 

I personally think Kerry would be critical if he wasn't Secretary of State - he's forced to echo the White House's statements. McCain on the other hand had a very off-the-cuff remark saying Obama and Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dempsey gave a "green-light" to Assad to use chemical weapons. It could easily be seen as a partisan attack, but knowing McCain is a senior member of the Armed Forces and Foreign Relations committees he has access to all intel relating to the crisis, and he's mentioned over weeks and now months how much he's been bothered by Obama's lack of action to do anything beyond issue bullshit rhetoric.

 

The fact is the White House has staved off the Syrian conflict for way too long. Let's not forget that most Europe has been all talk and no action. France and UK have been a lot more willing to intervene, but they can't safely without the U.S. committing forces.

[joshuatxuk]

 

 

 

 

its just another conflict used to destabilize the middle east for globalization. i cant believe people still havent figured that out

 

how?

 

or like, explain how the implosion of a non-aligned, cold war remnant authoritarian government fits into that?

 

i cant

 

 

dats ok

 

also I'm not one to argue that globalization won't be a factor in any future intervention or rebuilding efforts

 

I really don't the US/NATO/UN/etc to do anything beyond what was done in Libya. I'm on the fence about that intervention but I can say it was at least pragmatic as fuck and the cynical realpolitik in me approves that. I was in a heated but worthwhile discussion with my father and he said something I found to be quite insightful and accurate: he thinks Obama's handling of Afghanistan is a disgrace - the president won't commit substantial forces nor will he simply pull out all US military forces, so instead we're losing soldiers left and right with absolutely nothing to show for it. I would hate for Syria to turn into something like that. But he's stalled even a minimal effort off for way too long as well.

 

I can completely understand why many find him so aggravating - he's hopelessly indecisive. At least Bush fucking committed himself to his policy, it's too bad Obama couldn't grow a pair and commit to non-intervention and peaceful efforts. I know covert actions and spying would remain omnipresent, but even a little more transparency and clarity in his goals would be something. His foreign policy has gone from being cautious and moderate to absolutely cryptic and cowardly.

 

The problem is, how will Assad respond? So far Israel has launched targeted strikes inside Syria about 3 times in the last year or two and I don't think there were responses. However Assad has made numerous warnings against foreign intervention, including saying he would attack Israel if the US attacked. Assad being allied with Hezbollah and Iran, this could ignite a serious war.

 

 

Israel's strikes were very specific toward Hezbollah weapon depots connected to Lebanese operations. They are essentially border skirmishes. Turkish troops have fired back at Syrian forces when shells crossed the border. Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey have all lost a few military personal from Syrian government and Syrian rebel crossfire.

 

You bring up a good point through - the amount of proxy wars that could erupt into serious conflicts outside of Syria are numerous: Hezbollah/Iran versus other Arab States, Israeli forces versus Hezbollah, Turkey versus Kurdish forces. Even if Assad falls there's going to be a power struggle between the Islamist militants (including entities considered by most as terrorist groups) and secular factions. That's another reason some have called for US/NATO intervention - to get the secular forces better armed and better supported. Of course, trying not to upset Russian-US relations too much remains a major factor too. US and Western (EU, G8) policy towards the Middle East is completely based off pragmatism and stability. The only constants are protecting Israel, maintaining oil supplies, keeping US military hosts (Qatar, Bahrain) content, and keeping the overall region as close to non-chaos as possible. There's no moral standard whatsoever. These are all reasons why I understand Obama not taking action and essentially letting the civil war and it's bloodshed stay "contained" but his public rhetoric is way too strong and therefore insincere and meaningless.

[awepittance]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha1rEhovONU

only 3 more to go before the prize of Iran, Syria is next on the list. Taken a lot longer than 5 years, but the 'policy coop' aka PNAC's philsophy that Wesley Clarke is talking about is still in full effect

I'm with Jody, i don't understand why people try to rationalize the rhetoric, it's clearly used to manipulate us into another war to destabilize the middle east for western imperialist gains. end of story. Anything else trying to justify this action would be almost a ridiculously unnecessary over rationalization, when the simple mechanics of this have been written about in full detail hiding in plain sight.

that John Kerry speech was fucking disturbing, not only because the Obama administration is no longer embarrassed about sounding like Rumsfeld, Cheney and W but because of his creepy facelift as well. I hope Kerry is happy for his service to his country *shivers with utter disgust*

edit: and just fyi, if you read PNAC all these 'proxy wars' if Iran and Lebanon see a reason to get involved only benefit the overall battle plan, these countries at some point will belong to the United States, it is nearly inevitable. So why not just provoke them into pulling the switch? It may seem like an 'oversimplification' but this is because in essence, their plan has been relatively simple. It's hard to see it that way since in executing this relatively straight forward plan it's left ridiculous amounts of carnage and death in it's wake.

[awepittance]

if anyone didn't see this embarrassing, cringe-worthy and nearly vomitorious  display of the people in charge of the free world, check it out

and i'm sorry, but if anyone fell for this or is still falling for it at this point you just need to throw in the towel. Your abuser has broken you to the point of total disempowerment.

[Guest chunky]

It's easy for USA to destroy the government of Iran, Syria, Iraq or wherever. It's not easy to fight the entire people of these countries, acting on their own intitiative at a local level.

 

John Kerry's Wikipedia page is very interesting.

 

PS Isaiah 17

[awepittance]

 

It's easy for USA to destroy the government of Iran, Syria, Iraq or wherever. It's not easy to fight the entire people of these countries, acting on their own intitiative at a local level.

 

John Kerry's Wikipedia page is very interesting.

 

PS Isaiah 17

 

I don't really think we care or are worried very much about 'fighting the entire people of these countries' we just need to cleverly install a new government and hit the reset button. Insurgencies might always keep fucking with us, but it's not going to stop us from installing hundreds of bases and killing thousands of people. We simply do not care.

 

I'm not saying that I disagree with talking about the intricacies of this, but I am done tolerating people defending this type of behavior from the US. There is no excuse.