Kerry says world must act as Obama wins some support for Syria strike

They are starting to make wild, baseless claims. Where have we seen this before from the US?

The use of Chemical Weapons is forbidden from a long time agreement. Syria broke that agreement and killed alot of people and therefore, United States should air strike Syria for its use of chemical weapons.

If the United States don't act then some country will benefit.

They are starting to make wild, baseless claims. Where have we seen this before from the US?

Sad déjà vu, indeed.

Sadam Hussen also used Chem Weapons on the Kurds and had no consequence. I don't condone the use but selective dictators have freedoms others do not?

MarkGSep. 04, 2013 - 07:50AM JST Sadam Hussen also used Chem Weapons on the Kurds and had no consequence

I think it's fair to say that ultimately Hussein faced the consequences. In this instance with Syria two tings are evident, the US public has little willingness to get involved in a Syrian civil war, and Sec of State Kerry is correct is what he says. I suppose one reason to not get involved would be that China would love for us to get tied up in the Mideast again.

I don't condone the use but selective dictators have freedoms others do not?

Sadam Hussen IS dead. The Kurds moved up to the northern part of Iraq and US provided protection from another CW attack.

Syria, Iran, North-Korea are at the end of long chains Russia and China are holding. It still don't see why Assad would use chemical weapons. Removing Assad will create a void, yet again. The rebels, insurgents, freedom fighter, whatever_you_called_them can't be trusted. They are the same fanatical guys fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is again going to blow up in US hands.

The use of Chemical Weapons is forbidden from a long time agreement. Syria broke that agreement and killed alot of people and therefore, United States should air strike Syria for its use of chemical weapons.

Assad probably does have nerve agent stockpiled 2nd only to the US but it is the the most aggressive and successful arm of the rebels that are the only known sarin terrorists, caught transporting on the Lebanon-Turkey as recently as last May. Turkey needs to unveil and release the probe into those arrests.

they nothing good, good in invade other country for oil is their strength.

Embolden them to do what exactly? Who on earth are they about to attack? And with chemical weapons? It is this type of arrant nonsense that makes me so cynical of US intentions around the world.

Can we even believe the US accounts that chemical weapon use was real ? The US will make any story to further its hegemony. Remember the weapons of mass destruction excuse for invading Iraq?

Puzzles me why Us is so hellbent on military action when its last 2 or 3 have been such abject failures.

More like why is Kerry and Obama hellbent on military action based on baseless assumption as proven in their very vague report showing 'undeniable proof' that the Syrian government did it, completely ruling out the rebels possible involvement in the attacks.

http://nsnbc.me/2013/06/02/syrian-military-seizes-sarin-gas-from-rebels-russia-blocks-un-quasir-resolution/ http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/

Strongly pushing the implied dangerous threat from the axis of evils and insecurity is a very good strategy for US to use to win Congress approval

Puzzles me why Us is so helbent on military action when its last 2 or 3 have been such abject failures.

Like it or not, US plays an important role in maintaining order in this world. It's easy to laugh at the naivety of this notion of the US as some sort of 'world police', and go on to claim that everything they do is in their own self-interest. But I'm thankful that the Americans take this role seriously, rather than put their own self interest ahead (and in rightly so) like the UK for example.

Mitch Cohen Like it or not, US plays an important role in maintaining order in this world. ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Are you kidding ? Did you mean " disorder in this world " ?

But I'm thankful that the Americans take this role seriously, rather than put their own self interest ahead (and in rightly so) like the UK for example.;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Self Interest ? Everything USA does is self interest.

Oh and will the Smithsonian museums be closed just like the White House tours due to the phony sequester? Where is the $$$$ coming from for this loose loose proposition? The communist and ex-communist world as well as Iran will oppose and or react.

Hagel told the same hearing. “The word of the United States must mean something.”

... I found this line utterly staggering. Here's a man proposing to cold-bloodedly slaughter innocent civilians for what... so his honor is preserved? If your honor means more to you than the lives of innocent men, women and children then i put it to you U.S.A. that you have already lost your honor. If you seek to reclaim your honor through the blood of innocents then I put it to you U.S.A. that you have lost all conception of what honor means.

Any soldier that follows any order to attack Syria has no honor, and should be dishonorably discharged immediately.

Are you kidding ? Did you mean " disorder in this world " ?

Self Interest ? Everything USA does is self interest.

Like I said, it's easy to be in your camp. Much harder to do what the US does. I'm not saying the US do what they do out of the pure goodness of their hearts. Would you prefer if the US didn't care at all? Ask the Syrians under threat of death at the hands of their own government. I'm sure they share your cynical view of America's proposed intervention on Syria.

Mitch, i guess if we think what the world might be like if (for example) US hadn't invaded Iraq and Afghanistan you are saying it would be a worse off world? That there is a real possibility that NK would invade SK? That Iran would build nukes and fire them at Israel? what exactly? Instead we have 9/11, we have the "War on Terror", we have huge swathes of the Middle East and Northern Indian subcontinent in chaos and misery, we still have some kind of threat from NK and Iran. How exactly has the US being a type of world police made things better?

What THE HELL is Washington waiting on? A written inventation?

GO!! LAUNCH!!! STRIKE!!!

Get Assad and his Regime and bring his Megalomaniacs MURDEROUS RAMPAGE to it's bitter end before more innocent Civilians and Children are killed.

Do it before that THUG flees to Russia or Iran!

BTW: Assad blamed the death of Mika Yamamoto on the Rebels as well, but intelligence reported that Assad himself ordered the killing of All Foreign Journalist.

This Sick Psyco Assad will cling to Power no matter how many he must slaughter...

The Middle East has always been in chaos, usually over geography or religion or ethnic groups or all. I was all for ignoring 100,000 dead Syrians like everyone until chemical weapons got involved. That' something they can take out of their region and start using elsewhere.

Keep in mind that Libya had far fewer civilian casualties and no chemical weapons and Europe not only bombed them back into the stone age but created regime change. That was for a "humanitarian mission" that killed over 10-25,000 civilians. Syria is over 100,000 and chemical weapons are being used.

Is Syria Americas excuse to get into Iran??

Two things must be stisfied for the U.S. to conduct forces. One, the U.S. must have clear evidence that justify Assad's regime did used a chemical weapon. Second, the U.S. seek to discuss with international community. This include U.K, France and other contries such as EU, Japan etc.

Killing innocent civilians is just not acceptable. But funny the American's are acting with violence cause the Americans killed more civilians in the Middle East than Assad but they just didn't use chemical weapons. The world needs to take military acount against america to teach them a lesson and stop them from killing innocent civilians in Middle East.

How is it any of the United States' responsibility to "punish" Syria for their use of chemical weapons? Shouldn't that be the United Nations' job? $12,000,000,000. That's how much American money is given to the United Nations every year. Let them take some of that and do what they will in Syria, with Mr. Obama's blessing. Obama is about to perform an independent, executive government action with almost no support of the American people. He should be impeached, and Kerry removed. I grow weary of politicians that are not answerable to laws, the Constitution, their oaths of office, or even the people they govern. Enough killing of Americans, and by Americans, in the Middle East. I did not elect my representatives to authorize expensive, military force, in support of Al-Qaeda, in a Syrian civil war, that will lead to the deaths of civilians. This is disgraceful.

Yeah Mitch let's bomb maim and kill our way back to order like we did in Iraq!

What a result that is.....

SaketownSep. 04, 2013 - 11:07AM JST What THE HELL is Washington waiting on? A written inventation? GO!! LAUNCH!!! STRIKE!!! Get Assad and his Regime and bring his Megalomaniacs MURDEROUS RAMPAGE to it's bitter end before more innocent Civilians and Children are killed. Do it before that THUG flees to Russia or Iran! This Sick Psyco Assad will cling to Power no matter how many he must slaughter...

... so your logic is that by launching missiles at civilians we'll convince a man who doesn't care how many die to stop killing people?

Apparently you've met logic, but didn't make friends.

John Occupythemoon DalySep. 04, 2013 - 12:34PM JST How is it any of the United States' responsibility to "punish" Syria for their use of chemical weapons?

It isn't. It is, however the U.S.'s objective to exert as much control as possible over oil rich countries, like Syria, by threatening force whenever the price goes up or things don't go their way.

"Old men make war, young men fight war." Kerry? 19?? Now what?

" Top U.S. (WAR-HAWK) lawmakers Tuesday began rallying behind President Barack Obama’s plan to launch military strikes against Syria…" it should read.

60% of CITIZENS against involvement is what the congressional REPRESENTATIVES should show, not the 28% warmongering Neanderthals, no offense to actual Neanderthals.

If Obomba is foolish enough to follow the CIA "peace-keepers" into any form of physical attack, then WWIII may be on the event horizon.

Hey Jean, Thanks for the weblink of Mint Press. I have read it. If the article is true and accurate as claimed, then we need to reevaluate the situation differently.

Jean, by the way, who owns the Mint Press? Is it a part of University of Minnesota Journalism Dept? What I am trying to do is to see the credibility of research and news. Appreciate your feedback, Jean

Like it or not, US plays an important role in maintaining order in this world. It's easy to laugh at the naivety of this notion of the US as some sort of 'world police

Only inhabitants from asylum for mentally-ill ret@rds believe that massive bombings of innocent women and children of some foreign country by cruise missiles are targeted to improve an order in this world. By that wonderful logic, 9/11 also worked pretty perfectly to improve an order in this world.

@global, here's the link for their "about" page.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/about-us/

Considering the lack of factual data presented by the mainstream media, the censored press("we need to clear this with Washington, DC"), more truth comes via such independents IMO.

To my fellow Americans;

It is strongly in US interests to enforce the "red line" against WMD. Humanitarian concerns aside, WMD are cheap. We dominate through expensive "conventional" weapons, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Simply put, enforcing the ban against WMD makes it a whole lot easier to get our way in the world.

The U.S.A. joined WWI in 1917, three years after it had started.

They joined WWII in 1941, two years after it had started.

And they look like they are going to really make sure they are on time for the next one.

By starting it!

They seem determined to turn the Middle East into WWIII.

Is there any end to the Wall Street-driven Expand-Exploit-Exhaust cycle?

This is truly amazing. The two failed bush wars has killed Americans' appetite for an attack on Syria, and this issue is turning Republicans into doves.

Incredible stuff.

And despite Obama's dithering, the casualty count from his government's involvement at this point is 0.

Quite unlike the last guy's efforts....

The crux of the matter is Obama's desire to bring operation "Arab Spring" to completion. The operation was started about two and a half years ago, but got stuck. The creation of a display of chemical attack by the Syrian government is aimed to serve as a moral lever for finishing the operation using military force. America is involved very deeply in Syria, and is preparing to administer post-Assad Syria: Operating an American field hospital inside Syrian territory appears to be very humane, but then the question arises why was there a need for casualties in the first place? America is not righteous, as far as chemical weapons are concerned: It had used them amply in Vietnam, for example.

Launching multi-million dollar missiles to "send a message" is a waste of time and money. Just use email like any normal person.

Plus, let's imagine that Assad's regime is toppled. Then what? The largest of the rebel groups are extreme Islamists. Their next step? Kill the Christians and other minorities, such as Assad's tribe the Alawites. There is no "right" side to support here.

If the first 100,000 civilian deaths and 2 million refugees weren'T enough of a moral argument in favor of US intervention, then the minor use of gas surely isn't. Obama stupidly made his "draw a red line" remark and now feels obligated to back it up. A very foolish way to conduct policy. If anyone can either a/ guarantee that the attack will deter Assad from further attacks, or b/ fulfil a concrete policy goal, or c/ demonstrate the specific national security interest an attack will aid, then I will change my mind.

MitchCohen

Like I said, it's easy to be in your camp. Much harder to do what the US does. I'm not saying the US do what they do out of the pure goodness of their hearts. Would you prefer if the US didn't care at all?

This is an extremely naive understanding of why the United States gets involved in conflict in other parts of the world. The US only EVER acts out of self interest - it has nothing to do with 'caring' about what happens to people on the ground. It is all about hegemony, nothing else. It is about manoeuvring to control, and retain power. This has been true of all conflicts the US have been involved in since WW2.

Of course, they don't say that, but you don't need to dig down too far to figure it out. Because, there are also plenty of other countries and conflicts where people have/are suffering due to war/oppression, and the US hasn't gone near them. You need to ask why.

When 9/11 occurred, the Americans were shocked. Completely rattled. Couldn't understand why they were attacked. But to many people who have observed and understood how, and why, the US has conducted itself throughout places in the Middle East for well over 50 years, they knew in an instant. I couldn't believe what I was seeing that day, but I knew exactly why it was happening.

Attacking Syria will not, in my opinion, improve US security, which is what it is ultimately designed to do. Because if they really cared about Syrians dying, they would have done something long ago.

Why is it up to the US to be the worlds police? In the past 60 years what has it done for the country? We seem to be labeled the bully. What is missed or forgotten is all the USA does as a nation and as private volunteers to help all over the globe. I am tired of the negatives always. Without the USA the world could be quite different today. And not in a positive light.

Tamarama,

"The US only EVER acts out of self interest - it has nothing to do with 'caring' about what happens to people on the ground."

Can't the same be said about every other country, or furthermore, human beings in general?

And that said, what does the US have to gain from a punitive strike for the use of WMD?

The US is not the world Police. I believe Corporate Bosses want this and twist arms to get their way, Oil, Water, Food, Chemicals, Passage ways etc.

The media is bought out by those same corporations - dont believe this push. it is contrived.

After a passionate plea by Secretary of State John Kerry not to succumb to “armchair isolationism” after last month’s attack in a Damascus suburb, lawmakers drafted a bipartisan measure imposing a 90-day deadline for any U.S. military intervention.

It will be a battle between the true Americans of the Republic of the United States vs The Globalists, Libs and other corporate interests (military/oil etc).

Will the American people stand down to these criminals and their interests and at what cost?

Senator Paul made the cogent point that the hearings that were held today meant, basically, nothing. The President doesn't feel constrained by the Congress, nor does he feel he needs to consult Congress before using military force. So there is no real reason to have hearings and a vote, because in the end Obama will do what he wants. He has never said that he will go along with the wishes of Congress. It's all theatre.

after Syria war will see news like "US looses its 6 aircraft careers all of them were sunk by Skud", "One more Investment bank files chapter 11, 4th in a week", "Its the worse recession in US history", "Reports of fresh Chemical weapons in Syria, Will US intervene?"

@JTDanMan

"To my fellow Americans;

It is strongly in US interests to enforce the "red line" against WMD. Humanitarian concerns aside, WMD are cheap. We dominate through expensive "conventional" weapons, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Simply put, enforcing the ban against WMD makes it a whole lot easier to get our way in the world."

[emphasis using bold letters by me, YGHome3]

You are 5% of the world's population. Who gave you the right to dominate? Was it god?

@MarkG,

Why is it up to the US to be the worlds police?

Who said we wanted a self-appointed sheriff?

Amazing how Kerry is all for attacking the Syrian government over an attack inside its own territory with chemical weapons, but was against attacking the Iraqi government in 2003 which had used chemical weapons on attacks inside its own territory on the Kurds, invaded a neighboring country ( Kuwait ) a few years before, and was playing cat and mouse games with the hapless U.N.

JeanValJeanSep. 04, 2013 - 03:28PM JST

@global, here's the link for their "about" page.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/about-us/

Considering the lack of factual data presented by the mainstream media, the censored press("we need to clear this with Washington, DC"), more truth comes via such independents IMO.

Thanks. I think I've got that far. My question is how this website is financially supported. I do not want to read something supported by Al Qaida. Can you find that out for me? Thanks.

"Amazing how Kerry is all for attacking the Syrian government over an attack inside its own territory with chemical weapons, but was against attacking the Iraqi government in 2003"

Won't you be doing the same flip-flop - albeit inversely? Or are you supporting President Obama?

Do tell....

"Won't you be doing the same flip-flop - albeit inversely?

Huh?

"Or are you supporting President Obama? Do tell..."

I'll tell you I support Obama's efforts to stop the Syrian government from using chemical weapons, like eveyone else should be.

Madverts

Can't the same be said about every other country, or furthermore, human beings in general?

Maybe, but name one of those countries that acts unilaterally if, and when, it sees fit against other sovereign states? Israel, perhaps? Oh, wait.....

And that said, what does the US have to gain from a punitive strike for the use of WMD?

That's a good question. The US has sat by and watched the killing from the sidelines up until now - what, 100,000 people dead? But suddenly, 1000 people are killed by chemical weapons and their knees jerk and they sit up straight in their chair all of a sudden? That smells to me. For some reason, the game has changed and they are very nervous now, and my best guess is that they see this as a security issue of some sort - possibly due to information they have that they haven't released. Possibly to do with Israel even?

"Maybe, but name one of those countries that acts unilaterally if, and when, it sees fit against other sovereign states? Israel, perhaps? Oh, wait....."

Recently? How about France in Mali? Or Russia and its South Ossetia War? Really, the list could be endless, all of them selfish acts, most with some b/s justification....

"The US has sat by and watched the killing from the sidelines up until now - what, 100,000 people dead? But suddenly, 1000 people are killed by chemical weapons and their knees jerk and they sit up straight in their chair all of a sudden?"

I think it's more like 1500 people killed in that one attack (unless you're not counting under 18's).

I'm not sure it is fair to single out the US for inaction in this mess. No country has had the stomach for involvement thus far, and rightly so as it is a mess with no end in sight.

Are you really going to argue that the use of chemical weapons should go ignored for the sake of non-involvement?

"Old men make war, young men fight war." Kerry? 19?? Now what?

"Old men make war, missiles fight war."

So there is no real reason to have hearings and a vote, because in the end Obama will do what he wants.

What does he want is the question. If Obama gets us involved with Syria, the Democrats will lose major ground in 2014 and most likely will lose the White House. The President has already put his own party in congress in a wicked position forcing them to support him even if they may genuinely oppose the military action

Look, let's be blunt. If Assad is the problem, then kill Assad. It wouldn't be too hard, he is a very public person, especially these days. A simple drone strike and it is over.

Otherwise, unilateral action is a losing proposition. I have yet to hear any concrete support that the US can count on from any other country. Hell, we sold F-16's to most countries in the area, let THEM do the lifting. Or at least part of it.

I always had a problem linking chemical weapons and gas with other mass destruction weapons. There is a huge gap in the potential damage that nuclear/biological weapons can cause and the damage that chemical weapons does. It's just as easy to kill 1500 people with napalm and artillery than with sarin gas. I guess the lesson is that Assad should do his killing with regular weapons and he can get away with it. He has for the past 2 years...

NeneswswSep. 04, 2013 - 09:50AM JST

More like why is Kerry and Obama hellbent on military action based on baseless assumption as proven in their very vague report showing 'undeniable proof' that the Syrian government did it, completely ruling out the rebels possible involvement in the attacks.

http://nsnbc.me/2013/06/02/syrian-military-seizes-sarin-gas-from-rebels-russia-blocks-un-quasir-resolution/ http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/

I have read that. Thanks. Would you please tell me how this website has been financially supported. Who is behind? There are tons of websites that are questionable. It is our responsibility to sort it out to get the right information. That's a skill we learned from college, was it not?

"Look, let's be blunt. If Assad is the problem, then kill Assad."

Surely that is top of the first strike's agenda....

Before I buy any armed action on the US part, I have a few questions that need to be answered:

Assad by all accounts was winning. The rebels were not really gaining major wins and he had them under control. Why if this is the case would he risk world ire by gassing his own people.

Gas attack. What was the objective? Did the Assad forces really need the area that was gassed or was that area a hotbed of rebel activity that caused major concerns for Assad. Right now all we have is that civilians were gassed in their sleep. What would be Assad's objective. For the rebels, I could see the reason to get more help for them if they did it on their own to gain world support.

Natural gas piplines. From an article from The Guardian Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

Instead, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. Qatar is aligned with Saudi Arabia.

At least we made it through August, and hopeeully will not have another "Guns of Augus" event that happened 99 year ago that got the world into WWI. I think that it is bad that chemical weapons were used, when supposedly the world has been destroying them (at least the USA has). I guess that just goes to show that if we got rid of nukes too, not everyone would agree and there would be some joker out there willing to use them.

As some posters have stated, let the UN take the lead and do something.Each member country pays a lot in fees to that organization only to have them take up prime real estate in NYC and around the world and enrich themselves and not the people they are supposed to help. The UN, along with the Arab Leauge need to sit down and work things out, and the US should stay out of it.

I thought the whole point of the Obama win in 2008 was that we would have no more "cowboy diplomacy" and that the US would realize that we are not just the "sole voice of reason" in the world and that we should begin to respect other nations. Now we have Obama acting just like "W" did in the lead up to Iraq II. I am no fan of Obama, and not too worried about him being seen as weak, since I think that is what the world expected of him back in 2008 when everyone else was for him. But I do not let that guide my judgement on my belief that we should stay out of this.

Unlike with Iraq, Assad hnot openly claimed to use chemical weapons. Saddam used them as an instrument of war against Iran and against the Kurds. We knew he did this and he had military objectives of doing so to win some objective. If Assad's forces were doing the same thing, then I think that Obama would have a point. But now we hear from both sides that it was "not our fault" and that's not good enough to send American military forces in. The fact that the very same people who were against "W" on Iraq are now beating the drums for this should tell you that it may not be the best avenue.

Tamarama: This is an extremely naive understanding of why the United States gets involved in conflict in other parts of the world. The US only EVER acts out of self interest - it has nothing to do with 'caring' about what happens to people on the ground. It is all about hegemony, nothing else. It is about manoeuvring to control, and retain power. This has been true of all conflicts the US have been involved in since WW2.

Just about everything in your post applies to every country in the West and the world. Everyone acts in their own bests interests and I'm sure you know that. Some countries take action, like the UK in Libya, or the US in Iraq, or France's support in Syria, and some don't. There is no "attack everyone or no one" policy that exists. As for 9/11, there are so many countries that have been attacked that it's hard to believe people are still attaching reasons to any one specific incident. Bombs are a daily occurrence in a lot of Middle Eastern countries. It's an acceptable form of response for the radical people in their region. About 98% of the bombs are in the Middle East and on very rare occasions it spills out into the rest of the world.

I still don't know what your position is on Syria other than criticism. Do you support strikes? Do you support doing nothing? Is there a third choice you support?

I still don't hear a plausible goal being articulated....bomb Syria to punish Assad for using chemical weapons? How is this going to help? Will Assad not do it in the future? Are we trying to replace Assad? With whom?

Until there are rational answers to those types of questions I'm going with do nothing.

And despite Obama's dithering, the casualty count from his government's involvement at this point is 0.

Quite unlike the last guy's efforts....

But unlike the last guy, Obama's incompetence can trigger an out of control conflict that could involve Iran and quite possibly Russia. No plan, NO objective, NO goal, NO direction, NOT even a coalition, 9% of American support. The last guy didn't even come close to those abysmal numbers and had a coalition of about 40 nations including humanitarian aid. This guy, nothing, ok, France as long as the US take the helm, they are on board. Unless Obama goes in and cuts off the snakes head and destroys the entire Assad regime, this bombing campaign will achieve nothing, in fact, it just might escalate the situation further.

Vast Right-Wing Conspirator: Senator Paul made the cogent point that the hearings that were held today meant, basically, nothing. The President doesn't feel constrained by the Congress, nor does he feel he needs to consult Congress before using military force. So there is no real reason to have hearings and a vote, because in the end Obama will do what he wants. He has never said that he will go along with the wishes of Congress. It's all theatre.

Paul is manufacturing a way to be outraged with Obama for an action that he supports.

Alphaape: Before I buy any armed action on the US part

I don't think I've ever heard a Republican say those words in that order.

gelendestrasse: I still don't hear a plausible goal being articulated....bomb Syria to punish Assad for using chemical weapons? How is this going to help? Will Assad not do it in the future? Are we trying to replace Assad? With whom?

The goal is to send a message to the world that chemical weapons will generate a response in an effort to keep them off of the battlefield. The fear is that they could proliferate. The US is not trying to replace Assad.

YGHome3

You are 5% of the world's population. Who gave you the right to dominate? Was it god?

It is not a matter of right. It is a matter of power.

@JTDanMan

It is not a matter of right. It is a matter of power.

How lovely! Nazi Germany used to sanctify power. Do you remember their end?

Nigeria is pleading for our help! They want the terrorist Boko Haram destroyed. In Syria, I have yet to here any freedom fighter make the claim that they want either Israel or America to bomb Syria.

Say that sentence aloud to yourself... see if it makes any sense that either side wants our help?

Then again, it just might unite all three rebel factions and Assad together....

We now have 300 boots on the ground! Syria!

The goal is to send a message to the world that chemical weapons will generate a response in an effort to keep them off of the battlefield. The fear is that they could proliferate. The US is not trying to replace Assad

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent. The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq’s favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration’s long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn’t disclose.

= I guess it depends on who is gassing who => The CIA knowingly helping Iraq sarin gas Iran is ok.

Obama offers nothing more of the same Bush policies. U.S. should leave Syria to the Arab League. We can follow where they lead and not feel the need to bring up these sketchy satellite and human intelligences to promote an intervention. Just listened to Kerry's evidence to Congress. Kerry has clearly driven by an 'unknown' agend and sounds like second version of Colin Powell and we all know how that ended. Obama should not be dragging the world into another unwinnable position.

Madverts

Recently? How about France in Mali? Or Russia and its South Ossetia War? Really, the list could be endless, all of them selfish acts, most with some b/s justification....

French, Danish, Canadian, British and later American action in Mali is UN mandated. But I'm sure you take my original point, which is that no other country does it as consistently, or an anywhere near the scale of the US.

I'm not sure it is fair to single out the US for inaction in this mess. No country has had the stomach for involvement thus far, and rightly so as it is a mess with no end in sight.

It shouldn't be 1 country that takes action - it should be the UN.

Are you really going to argue that the use of chemical weapons should go ignored for the sake of non-involvement?

Again, why the distinction between killing with a 500lb bomb and a chemical? It's still killing - the result is the same: death. There has been inaction through 100,000 deaths to this point. I find it hypocritical that death by gun and bomb can be tolerated, whilst death by chemical suddenly can't. In my opinion, no deaths are OK and two and a half years ago I was calling for intervention from outside parties in this conflict on these boards. So, I am very cynical about why, all of a sudden, the goalposts have changed. I know enough about US intervention history to know that it probably has nothing to do with the welfare of the Syrians.

SuperLib

I still don't know what your position is on Syria other than criticism.

I oppose US unilateral action in Syria. How's that for ya?

I honestly don't see the big deal here. The US openly admits it has gassed it's troops in the Iraq war, continually and historically. =I don't see the red line the Supreme Dictator Obama and Kerry talk about.

http://www.testsubjects.net/USMilitaryUsedNerveGas.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/13/sarin-gas-gulf-war-veterans/1766835/

U.S. bombings of Iraqi munitions factories in January 1991 released a plume of sarin gas that traveled more than 300 miles to affect American troops in Saudi Arabia, although military officials claimed at the time that chemical alarms triggered by the gas were false, a study released today shows.

There has been inaction through 100,000 deaths to this point.

Let's keep up the good work.

I find it hypocritical that death by gun and bomb can be tolerated, whilst death by chemical suddenly can't.

So let's put tactical nukes on the table. Scorched earth, too.

I oppose US unilateral action in Syria. How's that for ya?

A non-response. Being anti-something isn't a plan. What action do you support in Syria, if any?

Obama offers nothing more of the same Bush policies. U.S. should leave Syria to the Arab League. We can follow where they lead and not feel the need to bring up these sketchy satellite and human intelligences to promote an intervention. Just listened to Kerry's evidence to Congress. Kerry has clearly driven by an 'unknown' agend and sounds like second version of Colin Powell and we all know how that ended. Obama should not be dragging the world into another unwinnable position.

That you are even making comparisons between the two presidents and two countries is entirely ridiculous! You are making an apple and and orange comparison.

"French, Danish, Canadian, British and later American action in Mali is UN mandated"

The French invaded Mali to protect their indispensable uranium interests in next door Niger under the bullshit pretence of Malian freedom. It was pretty much unilateral apart from a few Americans to train Malians to better slaughter the islamists plus a British hamper of scones for the troops from Harrods. Come on, this is like the "coalition" of the willing, support such as the Italians sending fifty troops to Iraq with parasols and Cinzano Bianco as their contribution to the war effort.

"Again, why the distinction between killing with a 500lb bomb and a chemical?"

I guess because it sets the precedent that regimes like Assad's can get away with it if the world does nothing.

I'm not professing to have all the answers here you know, but I think the distinction between a traditional munition and a weapon of mass destruction is pretty obvious, as is the need for a response from the international community.

Superlib

A non-response. Being anti-something isn't a plan. What action do you support in Syria, if any?

No it's not. Opposing an illegal attack on a sovereign state by another is a fairly common and reasonable reaction. Even the tiniest bit of reading will teach you that.

Why do you think the US suddenly wants to get involved, Superlib?

Madverts

The French invaded Mali to protect their indispensable uranium interests in next door Niger under the bullshit pretence of Malian freedom.

Window dress it any way you like, the fact remains that it is UN mandated.

I guess because it sets the precedent that regimes like Assad's can get away with it if the world does nothing.

They already HAVE been getting away with it - to the tune of 100,000!!!! Are you saying it's OK for them to kill another 100,000, providing they don't use chemicals? I don't really get this strange line in the sand that many of you seem to have about different ways of killing people. Now they have used a chemical weapon, people who have effectively ignored 100,000 deaths are suddenly outraged. Why the double standard?

"Window dress it any way you like, the fact remains that it is UN mandated."

You were talking unilateral action, not UN mandated if you'll care to remember. You also claimed the Americans are the only parties guilty of unilateral military action and as I have shown you are wrong.

"They already HAVE been getting away with it - to the tune of 100,000!!!! Are you saying it's OK for them to kill another 100,000, providing they don't use chemicals?"

No I'm not. I've also made my position perfectly clear just above on the use of weapons of mass destruction. Does a reasonable, traveled, intelligent person such as yourself need to be so obtuse? :)

Tamarama it's hard to follow you. You want the US to go through the UN while saying the UN is weak and ineffective. You don't seem to have much support for the ban on chemical weapons, which is surprising to me.

Is there any action you would support regarding Syria? Or is this a situation where it's bad that this is happening but there's nothing we can do about it?

Tamarama, are you implying that the Syrian government are responsible for all the reported deaths so far?

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?section=middleeast&xfile=data/middleeast/2013/September/middleeast_September6.xml

The rebels are known for committing atrocities:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/15562-syrian-rebels-massacre-christian-village

http://world.time.com/2013/09/05/al-qaeda-linked-syria-rebels-hit-christian-village/

I'm not saying that Assad himself is an Angel, but aren't you over exaggerating?

21:43 GMT: Probes from Khan al-Assal show chemicals used in the March 19 attack did not belong to standard Syrian army ammunition, and that the shell carrying the substance was similar to those made by a rebel fighter group, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated.

A statement released by the ministry on Wednesday particularly drew attention to the “massive stove-piping of various information aimed at placing the responsibility for the alleged chemical weapons use in Syria on Damascus, even though the results of the UN investigation have not yet been revealed.”By such means “the way is being paved for military action” against Damascus, the ministry pointed out.

But the samples taken at the site of the March 19 attack and analyzed by Russian experts indicate that a projectile carrying the deadly nerve agent sarin was most likely fired at Khan al-Assal by the rebels, the ministry statement suggests, outlining the 100-page report handed over to the UN by Russia.

Russia says Syria did not do it. Libs/Globalists and other criminal interests says Syria did it (with no evidence) and the people of Syria must suffer and perish like the people of Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan -add your country here-.

Neneswsw

Tamarama, are you implying that the Syrian government are responsible for all the reported deaths so far?

Yes, they are ultimately responsible. They started violent crackdowns on peaceful protesters and sustained them. As people rose up in support of those killed by the regime for protesting, they too came under fire. As the rebels began to take up arms to defend themselves from this attack, nefarious groups took the opportunity to join the fight from surrounding countries (which was highly predictable). Of course, the Rebels and other groups have killed people, but Assad's abuse of station and power ultimately created the conditions that put a match to the powder keg. A regime who has been nothing but brutal and highly corrupt for years.

They are entirely responsible.

Madverts

You also claimed the Americans are the only parties guilty of unilateral military action and as I have shown you are wrong.

Aww, c'mon.

I was suggesting no-one does it as often (implied in the 'if and when' bit), which is true, as you know.

Superlib

Tamarama it's hard to follow you. You want the US to go through the UN while saying the UN is weak and ineffective. You don't seem to have much support for the ban on chemical weapons, which is surprising to me.

Really? It shouldn't be. Yes, the UN should be taking action, especially if they have conclusive evidence. Yes, they are a weak, indecisive organisation that needs to be overhauled to better serve the interests of the people who suffer and die in the world. No, the US should not be taking unilateral action, as it's not their job, and it is breaking international law to do so.

AND, I am highly suspect of their motives for doing so, because, unlike you, I do not think they are doing it for the good of the Syrian people. History supports this.

Point taken.

The Syrian question is not a question of posture or politics.

Please review the current state of chemical weapons in Syria and learn why bombing is the single worst idea possible.

•Largest and most advanced CW capability in the Middle East. •Alleged to have chemical warheads for Scud ballistic missiles, and chemical gravity and cluster bombs for delivery by aircraft. •Alleged CW stockpile in hundreds of tons. •Agents believed to include Sarin, VX, and mustard gas. Sarin and mustard gas have been allegedly weaponized. •Major production facilities near Damascus, Homs and Hama with hundreds of tons of agents produced annually. •Program remains dependent on foreign chemicals and equipment. •U.S. alleges that Syria tested CW in 2002-2003. •Not a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention. source: http://cns.miis.edu/wmdme/syria.htm

One last point, any action without unified international action is not only dangerous but risks a cataclysm on par with any nuclear disaster. Gods help all of us if this idiotic idea of slamming cruise weapons into millions of tons of Sarin, VX and Mustard Gas stores or the chaos that will follow will end in a chemical disaster that dwarfs Fukushima.

Since Syria has not attacked the US, if the US attacks Syria it would be a violation of International Law and also our own Constitution and it should be determined by the UN Security Council id the Syria Govt is creating war.. Remember we killed thousands of innocent people because of the lies told that got the US to attacked Iraq. What about Libya & Tunisia, we attacked them also, but I don't remember them attacking us! I'm tired our warmongering politicians instigating wars and sending our young men & women to fight for them. If politicians want war, let them don on a military uniform and let them do the actual fighting. After all, our politicians are causing the US economy to go down hill!

Well, regardless, I think the US should get international approval before launching any strikes. The UN Secretary General could do this, even if the Security Council is blocked because of the Russians. A UN Resolution affirming again that Chem Weapons are bad. NATO could also get on board... In short, this will take time.

But make no mistake, the US is going to attack Syria. It may take a month, or two, but it will happen.

And the reason why it will happen is because it must happen: chemical weapons are a no-no. If you understand that, than you understand why the US must lead the international community is making it clear that when any country violates that no-no, there is a severe cost.

If you object to a US lead strike, prey tell, what can we -- the international community -- do to deter the use of chemical weapons? I am all ears.

And if you think that its' fine and dandy to use Chem weapons, then there is not much to be said on the matter.

Other than you are wrong.

The issue is NOT US bla blab la bla bla; its upholding the ban on chemical weapons. So, I put it to you: if you do not support a US lead strike, what do you propose?

Support for the insane idea of an attack is totally a media creation and fantasy, the liberal cabal that controls the major media outlets in the US is totallly dominated by the same socialist liberalist facism that Obama is imposing on the nation thru his PR efforts to promote his mother's visoin of a liberal utopia. It is a shallow sham. 80 percent of the people in the US detest the idea of more waste, bloodshed and terror from the middle east. Let them solve their own problems it is NOT the responsiblity of the US To police the world. Those days are long gone if they ever were justified. We can not afford to take care of our own problems..let alone spend billions on wasteful and aggressive attacks on others, no matter how immoral the use of chemical weapons may be and there is a very high chance that they were used by the so called rebel terrorist attackers themselves to get support. Time for sanity and for the media to just REPORT the news not try to make it.

CrisGerSanSep. 08, 2013 - 06:54AM JST Support for the insane idea of an attack is totally a media creation and fantasy, the liberal cabal that controls the major media outlets in the US is totallly dominated by the same socialist liberalist facism that Obama is imposing on the nation thru his PR efforts to promote his mother's visoin of a liberal utopia.

... This isn't about socialism, this is all about green... cash.... or possibly black oil.

Even if chemical weapons have or have not been used, the tragedy in syria is still real. It's despicable that all other nations are simply watching and not doing anything. This is where the UN should have acted, but the UN has proved itself in the past to be useless and scared. War against its own people should not be allowed. I am not a big fan of USA and their "world police" attitude, but if no one else dares to step into syria and get that assad-rat off the throne, then I guess they will, no matter what their real intentions are. War has to stop, no matter who is guilty of it. The loser is everyone, and everyone are PEOPLE.

No proof, no war Mr Kerry.....

Dear Dumb, Dumber and Dumberer fellow countrymen lawmakers,

On the anniversary of 9/11, you are now training, arming, funding and helping the same Al-Qaeda terrorists that helped attack America all those years ago. You are now going out of your way to convince the world why it should be helping you even more, while it's the world that's trying to convince them NOT to act. How do you comprehend that? If my 5 year old son gets it, I think it's about time that you do.. Ever wonder why our country, however great, is the most hated in the world? Why do you think countries the world over laugh at and insult us? Ask your children.

Obama and Kerry are jokes and considered foolish and shallow by most of those with common sense and intelilgence in the US and abroad. It is becoming more and more clear that this furor is largely the creation of US media once again seeking to make headlines and sell ads as they did in the so called media creation of "Arab Spring" when the media supported and promoted and actually pushed illegal rebellions and attacks on legitimate governemnts in the name of democracy when democracy in the western model is a foreign concept to most Arab societies. Once again modern greed and manipulation comes to the fore and is exposed for the corruption that it is. Glad to see 80 percent of most US congressmen who are less corrupt than the Senate because they are more answerable to their constituents..80 percent of their voters are against this shallow attempt by Obama facism to target yet another foreigh nation for his own grandstanding and media grabbing. Shame on the White House and Kerry for being such con artists.

Can't wait for lefties to start calling Obama and Kerry baby killers and war mongers who have sold their souls to Halliburton and the rest of the military industrial complex.

Saiaku Even if chemical weapons have or have not been used,

Sorry it is really important So YES or NO ?

And who have used it ?

Assad or Al-Quaeda?

OlegekSep. 12, 2013 - 12:44AM JST

Saiaku Even if chemical weapons have or have not been used,

Sorry it is really important So YES or NO ?

And who have used it ?

Assad or Al-Quaeda?

You are not catching up with the updates.

globalwatcher You are not catching up with the updates.

Yeah...because i'm not involved in this "chemical" business

OlegekSep. 13, 2013 - 02:43PM JST

globalwatcher You are not catching up with the updates.

Yeah...because i'm not involved in this "chemical" business

We know your questions are not genuine ones. You are just using these tricks (questions) to attack someone. We already figure that out, and we ignore you, dude. Please do not waste your time, so we do not waste our time. Fair?