US moves naval group closer to Syria

[Fidel_Castronaut]

After this much talk and saber rattling about attacking, I think not attacking would send the clear message that the world (US/NATO in particular) doesn't give a shit about WMD use or dead civilians (which it may well not)

Honestly, I think we're kidding ourselves by saying that this isn't the case.

But let's be fair, this current potential conflict is more about saving face than actually caring about the people being killed or the people doing the killing.

It's only because there's been so much media coverage on Syria that people actually care about Syria.

Do folk in the US know what's going on in Zimbabwe for example?

It's also about expectation. Terrible crimes are going on right now in Tibet, North Korea, Burma (and so on), but nobody expects the US et al to get involved, so nobody cares when they don't.

I think we're being hypocrites when we say "we do care", because we certainly don't, not universally, and we never will. I don't think there's anything wrong in admitting it. I want a world of selfless people and selfless governments that always help those when they need it. But we don't live in that world.

[SilentFutility]

Striking the chemical weapons facilities has been ruled out -- the chemicals could be released to the nearby population. The strikes will most likely target airports, military facilities, etc. The intent would be to discourage Assad to continue in the use of chemical weapons, and also sending a message to other dictators that they will always be a stiff price for such use.

The intent would be to cripple Syria militarily so that they cannot pose a threat to US interests and Israel while justifying it under this thin, vapid guise.

There is not always a stiff price for the use of chemical weapons, this is sending the message that you can fuck up whoever you like as long as you don't use gas, unless you're white in which case you can use whatever you want. Also, as discussed multiple times in this thread, having chemical weapons as an arbitary line in the sand that must be acted upon while ignoring far worse atrocities for huge lengths of time is silly.

Other dictators and power struggles are left unmeddled with unless interfering in them is advantageous to western interests. As also said, both the US and UK have established histories of backing dicators for their own ends and even deliberately installing puppet regimes.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Striking the chemical weapons facilities has been ruled out -- the chemicals could be released to the nearby population. The strikes will most likely target airports, military facilities, etc. The intent would be to discourage Assad to continue in the use of chemical weapons, and also sending a message to other dictators that they will always be a stiff price for such use.

The intent would be to cripple Syria militarily so that they cannot pose a threat to US interests and Israel while justifying it under this thin, vapid guise.

There is not always a stiff price for the use of chemical weapons, this is sending the message that you can fuck up whoever you like as long as you don't use gas, unless you're white in which case you can use whatever you want. Also, as discussed multiple times in this thread, having chemical weapons as an arbitary line in the sand that must be acted upon while ignoring far worse atrocities for huge lengths of time is silly.

Other dictators and power struggles are left unmeddled with unless interfering in them is advantageous to western interests. As also said, both the US and UK have established histories of backing dicators for their own ends and even deliberately installing puppet regimes.

Exactly. It's nothing to do with Chemical weapons. The US has used chemical weapons in the past, so has Israel.

I completely agree re the red. It's entirely about saving face. Nobody really cares about chemical weapons usage unless it's in a country that's a lot weaker and more vulnerable.

If China used chemical weapons tomorrow against its own people, or even the Tibetans, would there be an international outcry? Yes. Military action? Not likely.

[josephpalazzo]

Striking the chemical weapons facilities has been ruled out -- the chemicals could be released to the nearby population. The strikes will most likely target airports, military facilities, etc. The intent would be to discourage Assad to continue in the use of chemical weapons, and also sending a message to other dictators that they will always be a stiff price for such use.

The intent would be to cripple Syria militarily so that they cannot pose a threat to US interests and Israel while justifying it under this thin, vapid guise.

This conflict is more than 2 years old. If it had been a threat to US interests from the start, the US would have attacked a long time ago. The game changer is the use of chemical weapons.

There is not always a stiff price for the use of chemical weapons, this is sending the message that you can fuck up whoever you like as long as you don't use gas, unless you're white in which case you can use whatever you want.

This is so off-the-wall, I won't bother commenting on it.

Also, as discussed multiple times in this thread, having chemical weapons as an arbitary line in the sand that must be acted upon while ignoring far worse atrocities for huge lengths of time is silly.

 There is the Chemical Weapons Convention, that dates as far back as 1925. For what it's worth, it resulted in 92% of all chemical facilities to be destroyed. Assad was warned last year. Why he crossed the red line is anyone's guess, but retaliations is now inevitable.

Other dictators and power struggles are left unmeddled with unless interfering in them is advantageous to western interests. As also said, both the US and UK have established histories of backing dicators for their own ends and even deliberately installing puppet regimes.

Going back to the point I made earlier,  2) And if they only extinguish some of them, then they are cherrypicking only those for self-interest. IOW, the US can only do bad???, the US cannot extinguish every fire. Anyway, every other nation acts in its own self-interest. Why is the US singled out?

[The Whit]

IMO we should have gotten involved from the beginning.  When this whole situation started out it was the people vs Assad.  All we would have needed to do was impose a no-fly zone and arm the rebels.  All we would have done is give them the strength they needed to take out Assad.  We'd have no responsibility on the issue of rebuilding the country or setting up it's government unlike Afghanistan or Iraq, and when the rebels won we'd have a new ally.

Instead the government sat on it's hands and let the rebels try to duke it out on their own.  So there's a huge power vacuum in Syria with the rebels in dire need of assistance and we just watched our opportunity fade away.  But not Al-Qaeda.  Now Syria is a no-win situation where either we support Assad with backing from Iran and Russia or we support the same fucks we were bombing in Afghanistan AND THIS IS WHEN OBAMA DECIDES TO DO SOMETHING!?

But then again our government would have only taken that action if it actually gave a flying fuck about average people, and we all know that's the farthest from their priority.

[billhilly]

Why is it so important what a dictator uses to kill his people?  You would think that the fact that he's killing them would be the issue but apparently you'd be wrong.  It seems that we can't allow a dictator to use gas or all the other dictators will stop using whatever it is they're using now and switch to gas.  Much better for all involved that they continue to kill them with something other than gas.

If we really want to go all Pavlov on dictators and train them with bombs, why wouldn't we draw our little red lines on a numerical basis?  Say for instance if anything over a certain number or better yet a certain percentage of the population under control of said dictator is killed by whatever means, then we bomb him until he quits.  That way, each dictator has a quota he can't exceed.  Maybe it resets every year or something.  Either way it makes more sense than drawing little red lines on method as opposed to people killed right?

[Colanth]

Why is it so important what a dictator uses to kill his people?

Because, according to the administration, dissidents could get hold of those chemicals and use them in the US.  That makes the killing of everyone with an unlicensed handgun a logical action - preventative killing.

Of course the Republicans will criticize Obama whether he goes into Syria to bomb, puts boots on the ground or does nothing.  The fact that it's Obama who's doing it is what they consider wrong.  So he's probably trying to act in a way that will limit the flaming the most.

[Shiranu]

[youtube:53r6r5lr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_090jSIrSI[/youtube:53r6r5lr]

Russia is sending in a cruiser and a anti-sub ship to the Mediterranean. On the one hand; good for them, its nice to see someone telling the U.S. to go fuck itself. On the other hand... I don't think the U.S. gives a fuck, they will do what they want no matter what.

Also to quote the video...

Russian chief of staff said in June the navy had stationed 16 warships and 3 ship-based helicopters in the Med., it's first permanent navel deployment there since Soviet times.

I do not know Russian politics very well, but I would wager there are quite a few in its ranks that would be pro-war as well.

I'm thinking more and more this is less and less about Syria in even the least bit and more trying to fuck with Russia and China.

[Smartmarzipan]

More news:

US President Obama: 'No decision yet' on Syria strike
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23875121

Russia is sending an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the eastern Mediterranean.

The ships are being sent to strengthen the navy's presence in the area because of the "well-known situation" there, the Russian news agency Interfax has said.

But another news agency, RIA Novosti, quotes a senior naval command spokesman as saying that this is just a planned rotation, unconnected with Syria.

Critics have questioned what purpose a limited strike on Syria could serve, but Mr Obama told the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) it would send the government of Bashar al-Assad "a pretty strong signal that it better not [use chemical weapons] again".

The US has yet to produce the intelligence it says shows Mr Assad's government is guilty of using chemical weapons, and UN weapons inspectors are still investigating inside Syria.

The team has just begun a third day of on-site investigations, and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has appealed for it to be "given time to do its job". He said the inspectors would finish their investigations and be out of the area by Saturday morning.

Syria denies using chemical weapons and blames opposition fighters for the attack near Damascus on 21 August, which reportedly killed hundreds of people.

It accused the West of "inventing" excuses to launch a strike.

In a sign of growing fears about an impending attack among Syrians, the Associated Press quoted Lebanese officials as saying at least 6,000 Syrians crossed into Lebanon in a 24-hour period through the main Masnaa crossing - compared to a normal daily tally of between 500 and 1,000 refugees.

"Isn't it enough, all the violence and fighting that we already have in the country, now America wants to bomb us, too?" one 45-year-old woman, entering Lebanon with her five children, told AP.

In Damascus senior military commanders are reportedly staying away from buildings thought likely to be targeted. You "could hear a pin drop" at one of them, a local resident said.

President Obama told PBS that the US had "not yet made a decision, but the international norm against the use of chemical weapons needs to be kept in place, and hardly anyone disputes that chemical weapons were used in a large scale in Syria against civilian populations".

"We've looked at all the evidence, and we don't believe the opposition possessed chemical weapons of that sort," he said.

He added he had concluded that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack.

"There need to be international consequences, so we are consulting with our allies," he said.

There was "a prospect that chemical weapons could be directed at us - and we want to make sure that doesn't happen".

The BBC's David Willis in Washington says Mr Obama looked cautious and spoke in a measured way, and he was clearly concerned about getting Congress on board as well as the American public.

Opinion polls until now have shown very little interest among the US public in getting involved in the Syrian conflict.

The US has said it will not take action alone - but one of its primary allies, the UK, has agreed to wait until UN inspectors report back before taking a parliamentary vote on potential action.

Russia rejected a UK push to try to agree a resolution on Syria among permanent UN Security Council members on Wednesday, with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov saying the UN could not consider any draft resolution or proposed action in Syria before the UN weapons inspectors reported back.

The use of force without a sanction of the UN Security Council would be a "crude violation" of international law and "lead to the long-term destabilisation of the situation in the country and the region", Mr Lavrov has said.

[gomtuu77]

I hope this doesn't spiral out of control, but I won't be surprised if it does.  I'm expecting multiple wars in the Middle East and elsewhere in the next 20 years, and at least  2 or 3 of them, I expect to be quite large and devastating with deaths in the millions or higher.

[Agramon]

As far as I'm aware, Syria has Russia's only seaport in the Mediterranean, so it's no wonder that they'd want to make sure Assad stays in power.

[Nonsensei]

Russia is sending in a cruiser and a anti-sub ship to the Mediterranean. On the one hand; good for them, its nice to see someone telling the U.S. to go fuck itself. On the other hand... I don't think the U.S. gives a fuck, they will do what they want no matter what.

Can't agree with you here for a couple reasons. First, Russia isnt some shining example of righteousness. Its just one tyrant challenging another. Challenges to the United States should come from its own people not other countries.

Second, any conventional combat that might take place between the US and Russia won't end conventionally. This feels like Cuba all over again. This is extremely bad, and when I voted for Obama the last thing I ever though I would see him doing is flirting with nuclear war in even the most remote way. What the fuck?

[Smartmarzipan]

Putin says US should present Syria chemical weapons evidence to UN Security Council
http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/ ... ty-council

Russian President Vladimir Putin says that the United States should present its evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria to the UN Security Council, and has said that it would be "utter nonsense" for the Syrian government to have carried out the alleged chemical weapons attacks, according to the Reuters news agency.

Whether the Assad and/or the Syrian government made this attack, the US needs to provide evidence before making any decisions. To quote some other anonymous internet user:

Wait a second, the US had the UNSC unsuccessfully vote on a resolutions giving the legal basis for an attack, and they didn't even provide the evidence to council members? And yet we are made to believe China and Russia are being 'difficult' and 'counter-productive'? WTF, I get they don't want to share it with the public because when it turns out fake it gets 10 times as awkward but at least let the UNSC poke at it.

[billhilly]

Looks like cooler heads have prevailed.  

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama said Saturday he is prepared to take military action if necessary against Syria for the alleged use of chemical weapons against its own people, but said he will seek authorization from Congress before moving forward.

Mr. Obama said he's talked with leaders in Congress and they've agreed to schedule a debate on using force as soon as they return from their August recess on Sept. 9, though lawmakers could be called back earlier.

The president said the effectiveness of any U.S. military strike, which he vowed would be limited, is "not time sensitive."

"It could be effective tomorrow, or next week or one month from now," Mr. Obama said. He said he is aware that the United Nations and some countries may not agree with his decision. He said he's prepared to go forward without their approval.

Probably not much chance of congress going along after their break what with midterm elections coming up and all.

Oops forgot the link - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopStories

[Nonsensei]

Decision made. Going in.