US Military to Syria

[WitchSabrina]

U.S. officials have concluded that the Syrian regime of president Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons against rebel fighters, the New York Times reported on Thursday.

Congressional sources told CNN that investigators concluded that Syria has used chemical weapons multiple times.

In a statement released on Thursday, the White House says U.S. intelligence concluded that the Assad regime used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent Sarin, against rebel fighters in the last year.

The statement continues:

Our intelligence community has high confidence in that assessment given multiple, independent streams of information. The intelligence community estimates that 100 to 150 people have died from detected chemical weapons attacks in Syria to date; however, casualty data is likely incomplete. While the lethality of these attacks make up only a small portion of the catastrophic loss of life in Syria, which now stands at more than 90,000 deaths, the use of chemical weapons violates international norms and crosses clear red lines that have existed within the international community for decades. We believe that the Assad regime maintains control of these weapons. We have no reliable, corroborated reporting to indicate that the opposition in Syria has acquired or used chemical weapons.
The White House reiterates that President Obama has designated the use of chemical weapons as a red line and that the U.S. will increase its assistance to the opposition.

"Our intelligence community now has a high confidence assessment that chemical weapons have been used on a small scale by the Assad regime in Syria. The President has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has," the statement says.

National Security Council deputy advisor Ben Rhodes said on Thursday that the President Obama reached a decision on what the new support for the Syrian opposition would look like. According to Buzzfeed, Rhodes said: "The president has made a decision "about what kind of additional support will be provided to the rebels. It will be "direct support to the SMC [Supreme Military Command] that includes military support." Rhodes added that no decision has been made on the institution of a no-fly zone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/1 ... d=webmail1

WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States has conclusive evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime has used chemical weapons against opposition forces seeking to overthrow the government, crossing what President Barack Obama has called a "red line" that would trigger greater American involvement in the crisis, the White House said Thursday.
Officials said Obama was considering both political and military options, but it was unclear how quickly new actions would be taken and what they would involve.

"We've prepared for many contingencies in Syria," said Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser. "We are going to make decisions on further actions on our own timeline."

The White House said the Assad regime had used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale multiple times in the last year. Up to 150 people have been killed in those attacks, the White House said, constituting a small percentage of the 93,000 people killed in Syria over the last two years.

The Obama administration announced in April that it had "varying degrees of confidence" that sarin had been used in Syria. But they said at the time that they had not been able to determine who was responsible for deploying the gas.

The more conclusive findings announced Thursday were aided by evidence sent to the United States by France, which along with Britain, announced it had determined that Assad's government had used chemical weapons in the two-year conflict.

Obama has said repeatedly that the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red line" and constitute a "game changer" for U.S. policy on Syria, which until now has focused entirely on providing the opposition with nonlethal assistance and humanitarian aid.

The White House said Congress has been notified of the new U.S. chemical weapons determination, as have international allies. Obama will discuss the assessments, along with broader problems in Syria, next week during the G-8 summit in Northern Ireland.

Obama is also expected to press Russian President Vladimir Putin, Assad's most powerful backers, to drop his political and military support for the Syrian government.

"We believe that Russia and all members of the international community should be concerned about the use of chemical weapons," Rhodes said.

Not sure what involvement just yet.   *shakes head*  Have we not yet learned our lesson to stay out of other country's business?  Will the American public support this?

[WitchSabrina]

another article
http://www.policymic.com/articles/13356 ... -look-like

[AllPurposeAtheist]

US Military learn lessons about fucking around in other nations? Certainly you jest. :shock:
I honestly don't see an easy answer in this one. Doing nothing assures Assad victory, but a widening conflict with no end in sight, but involving our military directly is an even worse option possibly bringing is into direct confrontation with Russia, Iran, maybe China, dragging Israel into it and on and on. Doing nothing isn't an option, but neither is involvement. We could just say "Either knock it off motherfuckers or we'll nuke the whole lot of you and let Africa, Europe and Asia fight over the leftovers, but I'm fairly sure that's a really unpopular choice especially to certain forum members living within nuclear bomb distance.  :-$

[DunkleSeele]

One of the problems I see with a direct intervention on the side of the rebels is that Syria will probably end up being another Islamic theocracy. Egypt should teach us all something.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Policy makers here would like nothing better than theocracy.. It makes their populations much easier to control. It's those pesky people who think they deserve basic human rights that muck up the works for policy makers..

[stromboli]

If Obama authorizes military intervention in Syria I will sign any petition for his impeachment.

[SGOS]

Whether it's in our best interests to get involved aside, I'm skeptical about this.  I don't trust my government to do what's right.  Government is just a bunch of politicians who rose to the top of the swamp due to their popularity, but not with any particular knowledge about world affairs.  We voters are manipulated into supporting these military incursions through a diet of carefully selected information released through the media.  150 killed by chemical weapons among thousands killed by conventional means?  It almost seems like a technicality, doesn't it?

Tens of thousands killed by conventional weapons?  Not a problem.  Let them work it out on their own.  But 150 killed by chemicals, and we must enter the fray.  I suspect Obama has been waiting for something to use as an excuse.  This may not be the excuse that causes us to invade, but it does show that the government has a clear preference for the rebels, and this news item will be added to the list of reasons in voter's minds why we need to get further involved.

But are the rebels the right ones to lead Syria towards a peaceful government that relates to the rest of the world?    Should I just assume that the government has our best interests at heart, or are they being lobbied by the arms manufacturers because it's good for business?  I don't know the answer, but the one thing I do believe is that our government knows what it's doing less than half the time.  It's just a bunch of guys reacting to their own personal needs.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

If Obama authorizes military intervention in Syria I will sign any petition for his impeachment.

Then you'll be signing impeachment petitions for the forseeable future and beyond because we'll keep electing presidents sharing the same views. Congresses will authorize it all and nobody bent on stopping it will ever be able to financially overcome the defense industry lobby in Washington..

[DunkleSeele]

If Obama authorizes military intervention in Syria I will sign any petition for his impeachment.

Then again, who will replace Obama? I would think the impeachment of Obama would swing the public opinion towards the Republitards...

[stromboli]

If Obama authorizes military intervention in Syria I will sign any petition for his impeachment.

Then you'll be signing impeachment petitions for the forseeable future and beyond because we'll keep electing presidents sharing the same views. Congresses will authorize it all and nobody bent on stopping it will ever be able to financially overcome the defense industry lobby in Washington..

Unfortunately you are right. Sad.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

If Obama authorizes military intervention in Syria I will sign any petition for his impeachment.

Then you'll be signing impeachment petitions for the forseeable future and beyond because we'll keep electing presidents sharing the same views. Congresses will authorize it all and nobody bent on stopping it will ever be able to financially overcome the defense industry lobby in Washington..

Unfortunately you are right. Sad.

Don't forget, everlasting war means JOBS JOBS JOBS! Until those jobs are all done either in China or behind prison walls by inmate labor @ $0.25 per hour..

[Jason Harvestdancer]

To quote the bowl of petunias, "Oh no, not again."

[pr126]

If Assad falls, the Christians and the Alawites in Syria will be massacred.
One step closer to the Islamic Caliphate.

As for Muslims fight each other, well, let them.  They been doing that ever since Muhammad turned up his sandals.

[_Xenu_]

Im not looking to get into yet another war either. The rebels come from a wide range of ideologies: Getting rid of Assad would only be the beginning of a new conflict with unpredictable results. Even scarier though, I don't see how Obama can avoid intervention and save face given his earlier comments about drawing a line re: chemical weapons.

[SGOS]

Im not looking to get into yet another war either. The rebels come from a wide range of ideologies: Getting rid of Assad would only be the beginning of a new conflict with unpredictable results. Even scarier though, I don't see how Obama can avoid intervention and save face given his earlier comments about drawing a line re: chemical weapons.

It is Obama's problem, and that's too bad.  It's one of those cases where he must weigh his political standing against the good of the country, and what's good for one may not be good for the other.  

He made a promise.  He will take a hit if he doesn't live up to it, but his detractors won't care about what happens to the country as much as they will relish using the situation against him.  And if we get embroiled in another war, they will love beating up on that even more.

Compare that to George Bush, who stood by the Iraq invasion even when it turned out to be an ugly waste of time and money.  No one can accuse him of being a flip-flopper.