Syria

[JimboUK]

@Jim

 

Absolutely, the language of the resolution is intentionally vague and open-ended, allowing Obama to do whatever he wants (no prohibition whatsoever on ground troops) once it is approved.

 

.....

 

More broadly, Obama has also really thrown his party under the bus with this decision, in a way that could really damage their electoral prospects both in the next election and in a more existential sense. Just as the failure and corruption of the Bush presidency played a pivotal role in spinning off the the Tea Party from establishment Republicans, I think that Obama's unpopular, reckless behavior has the potential to do the same thing with liberal Democrats as well. This vote (and the NSA votes before it) will create some awkward townhall meetings for many Democrats, and I would hope that principled Democratic voters would not forget their transgressions come the primaries and/or general election.

 

I also just love the slanted coverage of this issue in the media, always asking inane questions like "Why is Russia so confrontational" when it is clear as day that it is the US consistently in the position of disrupting the geopolitical equilibrium and sniping off Russia's (few) traditional allies. If the shoe were on the other foot, would Washington just smile and acquiesce as Russia (or China) toppled the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Japan, Mexico, etc. using unilateral action and dubious, self-interested justifications? Somehow I didn't think so.

 

I posted that link about the petrodollar because it's about the only thing that makes any sense, what is coming out of Washington certainly doesn't. Why are they willing to seriously damage their own party, risk a regional conflict or worse over a few deaths? Yes what happened was horrible and yes it is possible Assad did it although I still doubt it but this response is out of all proportion. Anyway it's not the first time chemical weapons have been used there, we know of 13 other occasions that were ignored because it looked like the "rebels" did it.

 

The Russians are the wildcard here, they're slowly and quietly building up their forces in the Mediterranean and I doubt they're there to get a tan. I assume Putin has his red lines too only he's not stupid enough to make them public, will they sit back while their ally is attacked and their only warm water port is taken away? I just hope they show more restraint than the lunatics in Washington. Iraq could also be a problem, it's hardly the most stable country in the region and there'll be plenty of people there with no love for the U.S, what happens if people start crossing the border from there to join in or they start firing across the border? the U.S gets dragged back there again. As for Iran who could blame them for building a deterrent? (that's if they are), the stars on this map show bases the U.S can use, no wonder they're feeling threatened....

 

http://i.imgur.com/DmhRFFF.jpg

[Lisnpuppy]

Russia is likely to do the opposite just to piss off Washington.

 

I am sadden and displeased. They didn't give him anything he didn't already have....but putting a seal of approval as if it speaks from the American people of which it clearly does not.

 

It does however make all of us stop talking about jobs, education the infrastructure and all those other pesky things that have been on our minds lately.

 

As for Iran...well I can kinda see why they are pissed. Israel doesn't let UN inspectors in either. Never hear about them getting in trouble for it, do you?

 

I just really....and most folks is America are just too lazy to go and jerk a knot in a few Congressfolk's tails.

 

 

As for the reasoning..aside from the things I mentioned earlier....it makes me think of a song...."hey it must be the money..."

[HeyYou]

There is no reason, or logic, to washingtons actions. We have been down this road before, and wound up in more trouble than we would have gotten had we kept our noses out of it. But of course, it seems it is impossible for washington to learn anything at all. History, and past failures, have taught them nothing. They are too stupid, or blind, or bribed.... to see the writing on the wall.

 

Iraq is already involved. On Assad's side..... So, techincially, the US is playing both sides against the middle here. We directly support the rebels, and we indirectly support Assad. (via Iraq, where do you think the material Iraq is sending there came from?)

 

This is going to turn out badly. Congress needs to get is't feces in one sock, and tell Obama to stuff his military strikes where the sun don't shine.

[Harbringe]

Have been waiting for this guy to post something on this . Its extremely well done and I strongly urge you to watch it through. Just so you know there is one part he uses that has been previously posted.

 

 

 

 

This next video I'm posting is in response to something Sukeban posted in this thread about how he expected this situation to resolve in the same manner as we have seen so many heretofore resolve , basically that no one would oppose the actions of the US , that a large amount of munitions would be expended and a bunch of defense contractors would make a bunch of money replacing those munitions. This I disagree with because your basing that assumption on the past situations that we have seen over the last decade and in all of those cases be it Afghanistan , Iraq , Libya or even the limited involvements in Somalia or Yemen , did the interests of the other major players (Russia or China) come into play . This time they do , in other words they didn't care and now they do . Russia cares because Syria provides Russia with a strategic means to be a player in the ME and China cares because Iran has a defense pact with Syria and Iran provides China with an oil source that is not under the control of the US or one of its allies and that is strategically vital to them.

 

War is politics by another means and in this present exercise of politics there is a discipline called Game Theory in which you set forth a desired outcome and then run a series of calculus of war possibilities and at each point of the game theory each calculus must bear out or the game theory will fail and you end up with an unexpected outcome.

 

The following is meant to show you how this game theory has been playing out and how its been escalating. I'm not saying this is the only way this can play out but just showing that it is one of the ways it could go . Also at 1:06 to 1:44 take note there is some intel there that is not said. (Let's see how smart people are) and finally at 5:15 one Joel C Rosenberg (an ardent Israel supporter) comes on , take note what he starts with and where he ends and realize the push to get America to do the fighting is still the goal.

 

 

Even if the video is wrong and this is not the moment where such a scenario plays out , one thing I do know is that the people who are pushing this forward are determined and eventually if no one stops them they will box Assad into a corner and he will face his own game theory calculus of war where he will have only one option to try and change the outcome and that will be to employ the only strategic assets he possesses, the chemical weapons that are there to be a deterrent to Israel's nuclear weapons and he will throw everything he has at Israel . This wont be because he is evil or some crap like that but because he thinks he has no choice.

 

 

Sweet and the game just keeps escalating.Israel testing ballistic missiles.

 

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-israel-rattles-region-with-missile-test-20130903,0,2725776.story

[Aonghus]

Well, see, that's just the problem..... Hitting areas where these weapons are stored, to 'prevent their use', is just as likely to cause civilian casualties as the various folks over there actually using them intentionally. It's more like "Don't do that, or I will hurt you!", or "My army is better than your army." Or some such nonsense of that nature.

That is not entirely accurate.

 

When I was in the Marines, my MOS was "NBC Defense NCO.” (Somewhere along the line, the acronym morphed to WMD, but I was already out by the time that happened.) Which mostly meant I was the most hated man in my unit twice a year when I ran everybody through what was officially called a “chemical weapons environment exposure exercise,” and was unofficially called names that will at least earn me a formal warning from the Nexus for swearing. We were, however, trained in all aspects of defending (as much as a defense was possible,) against these sorts of weapons. This included training in how to destroy stockpiles of these things.

The key is fire or extreme heat. Breathing the smoke from burning chemical weapons will probably make you sick, (in the “I think I just threw up my toenails,” type of way,) but it is unlikely to give you what we referred to as “the VX shakes.”

[Mohamed2001]

The most common rumor in Egypt ever:

 

"Obama's going to take over Syria, turn it into Afghanistan. Then do the same to Egypt. Then do the same to all other arabic countries."

 

I do not believe rumors much.

 

 

-Mohamed

[HeyYou]

 

Well, see, that's just the problem..... Hitting areas where these weapons are stored, to 'prevent their use', is just as likely to cause civilian casualties as the various folks over there actually using them intentionally. It's more like "Don't do that, or I will hurt you!", or "My army is better than your army." Or some such nonsense of that nature.

That is not entirely accurate.

 

When I was in the Marines, my MOS was "NBC Defense NCO.” (Somewhere along the line, the acronym morphed to WMD, but I was already out by the time that happened.) Which mostly meant I was the most hated man in my unit twice a year when I ran everybody through what was officially called a “chemical weapons environment exposure exercise,” and was unofficially called names that will at least earn me a formal warning from the Nexus for swearing. We were, however, trained in all aspects of defending (as much as a defense was possible,) against these sorts of weapons. This included training in how to destroy stockpiles of these things.

The key is fire or extreme heat. Breathing the smoke from burning chemical weapons will probably make you sick, (in the “I think I just threw up my toenails,” type of way,) but it is unlikely to give you what we referred to as “the VX shakes.”

 

You guys though, for the most part, assumed being boots on the ground, and being able to deal with such things on an in-person basis. I will grant, our bombs have gotten more accurate over the years, but, in this particular case, a few feet one direction or the other changes the scene from destruction, to 'unleashing'...... Personally, I think its a bad idea.... but then, the government hasn't gotten in the habit of consulting me on these types of decisions yet..... :D

[Hardwaremaster]

This thread is awesome and this picture is ironic, given John Kerry's statements a while back, keep in mind this photo was before the alleged gas attacks. Which various governments cant seem to figure out actually happened, or who even initiated the supposed attacks. See this. this. this. this. this. this. While at that website I might suggest, if your interested, look at their other articles on Syria. Now I'm not saying what is or isn't going on here, I'll let you guys make your own decisions, however I would like to ask were does this type of information come from, given various other sources that create statements, that openly contradict the shown narrative. Such as the following articles, I'm going to post here, read at your leisure: this. this. this. Anyone else sensing a contradiction here as I currently am, because someone is wrong here, however they didn't feel the need to redact the article in question.

 

http://www.onlinepublishingcompany.info/images/_attachments_/2013_09/2septs1kerry.jpg

 

Heretofore is a list of John Kerry's statements regarding the situation in Syria before this apparent sideshow chemical spectacle. After reading what he has said in the past, and what he is saying now in the present, I'm beginning to sense a conflict in either personal or national interests. Now I can't decide on which one is the more probable. :wink:

 

 

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100233562/john-kerrys-top-10-most-embarrassing-statements-on-syria/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/30/john-kerry-statement-us-intervention-syria

 

 

Edited September 5, 2013 by Hardwaremaster

[HeyYou]

And Putin is saying they have evidence the "opposition" initiated the gas attack.

 

Are we having fun yet?

[sukeban]

@Harbringe

 

Indeed, kicking this back to Congress has really amped up the expectations for the attack. You can tell even from the press conferences and testimony, where the mission has crept from merely "sending a message" to "fundamentally degrade Assad's military" to "tip the balance of power toward the opposition" to, most likely, "regime change." Something is definitely weird with the scenario, as you and Jim have stated, that Obama's reaction has been completely out of proportion to the alleged chemical attack. I still don't know about a larger conflict being likely, but, if I were Russia, I'd be stationing my own troops inside of Assad's compounds, basing my own planes next to his at his air bases, and airlifting as many anti-ship and anti-air missiles as humanly possible as "gifts" for the regime. Heck, if I were Putin, I would go to Syria and hang out with Assad, tour his bases in front of the international press, and, in effect, signal to Obama that it would be very ill-advised to launch yet another Western takeover of one of my allies. Wouldn't contribute at all to world peace and would likely exacerbate his own problems with Islamists, but it would send the first signal since the end of the Cold War that the US can't just unilaterally run train on Russian interests without some sort of pushback.

 

.....

 

Rand Paul is becoming amazing, however. His would be the first actually useful fillibuster in like the last twenty years if he actually makes good on his threat to fillibuster the resolution in the Senate. That would be the kind of opportunity that speaking fillibusters are made for, utterly cinematic. It could be the iconic moment for his presidential campaign. I don't much care for his economic policy, but if I were a Republican presidential aspirant (or Hillary), I would be taking careful note that Paul is on the right side of some seriously lopsided public opinion.