Kucinich: Attacking Syria is Act of War

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't think this is even remotely close to WW3, but otherwise I agree with him on it that it is both illegal and stupid.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

It's been a long time since I've agreed with anything Kucinich has said, but bless his heart, he's speaking truth on this.  There's shenanigans and bullshit being called on this.

[SGOS]

I was really rooting for him to win the Democratic Presidential Nomination all those years ago. *sigh*

The "mainstream" made him out to be a kook back in the day like the left's version of Ron Paul.  They "otherize" folks that don't tow the line whether they're on the left or right.  It seems you can't be taken seriously if you publically admit that you think the US should stop bombing people and take care of its own business.  That's just crazy talk.

While he's indeed brilliant, he is small of stature and has a somewhat weak voice.  He's a throwback to bygone days when politicians were often actual statesmen.  He tends to relate to reality, rather than public fantasy, and he's not very good at talking bullshit.  In short, he's not presidential material.

[SGOS]

how Ironic it will be if Mr. Nobel Peace Prize winner is the spark that causes the worst war the earth has ever known. one we might not make it out of alive.

I'm actually embarrassed about him getting a Nobel Prize.  I was enamored with him so much at the beginning of his presidency that him getting the Peace Prize struck me as a good choice.  I realized that he had no track record in regards to either war mongering or peace, but I loved him and thought he deserved it.

In retrospect, I have wondered why the committee selected him for the prize at all.  I think it was because the country had just survived 8 years of wild eyed neocon control, with a dim witted Murkin living in the White House that had absolutely no swagger until he had the opportunity to monger a war.

Basically, Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize for not being George Bush, which when you think about it, is rather dubious ground for awarding anything to somebody.  But like everyone else, I wanted there to be a "change you could believe in".  God damn!  I was such a sucker.

[Smartmarzipan]

the house of commons in britain just blocked their being in this war.

Yeah, I was just reading about that this morning.

Syria crisis: Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-2 ... WEET872473

David Cameron said he would respect the defeat of a government motion by 285-272, ruling out joining US-led strikes.

The US said it would "continue to consult" with the UK, "one of our closest allies and friends".

France said the UK's vote does not change its resolve on the need to act in Syria.

Russia - which has close ties with the Assad government - welcomed Britain's rejection of a military strike.

The prime minister's call for a military response in Syria followed a suspected chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of the capital Damascus on 21 August, in which hundreds of people are reported to have died.

The US and UK say the Assad government was behind the attack - a claim denied by Damascus, which blames the rebels.

Assad said Syria would defend itself against any aggression.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond had told BBC's Newsnight programme that he and the prime minister were "disappointed" with the result, saying it would harm Britain's "special relationship" with Washington.

But he said he did not expect Britain's decision to "stop any action" by other countries.

Labour leader Ed Miliband said on Friday that the House of Commons had spoken "for the people of Britain".

"People are deeply concerned about the chemical weapons attacks in Syria, but they want us to learn the lessons of Iraq," he said.

"They don't want a rush to war. They want things done in the right way, working with the international community."

He said Britain "doesn't need reckless and impulsive leadership, it needs calm and measured leadership".

Cameron regrets vote, France says strike still on
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... s/2736891/

Prime Minister David Cameron said on Friday he regretted the failure of the British parliament to support military action in Syria though he still felt Britain should have done something to prevent further slaughter in Syria.

"I think the American public, the American people and President Obama will understand," Cameron said.

"I haven't spoken to him (Obama) since the debate and the vote but I would expect to speak to him over the next day or so. I don't think it's a question of having to apologize," Cameron said in an interview aired on British television channels.

Meanwhile, French President Francois Hollande said his country could go ahead with a strike on Syria for allegedly using chemical weapons against his own people in an attack that killed hundreds of people.

"The chemical massacre of Damascus cannot and must not remain unpunished," Hollande said in an interview with the newspaper Le Monde, published on Friday and reported by CBS News.

The votes came on a day that the Obama administration postponed disclosure of the intelligence that led it to conclude the regime of Bashar Assad was to blame for the Aug. 21 chemical attack that killed hundreds of people in a region north of Damascus. The British government released its intelligence findings Thursday.

The president would be willing to retaliate against Syria on his own, without an international coalition, a spokesman said following the vote in London.

"The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests in the United States of America," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.

I have a sinking feeling that we're going to end up in fucking Syria soon. :( But, at least this time around most Americans are pretty put off by the idea.

Poll: Americans want Obama to get Congress OK on Syria
http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2 ... e/2736855/

Nearly 80% of Americans think President Obama should seek Congressional approval before taking any military action in Syria, according to a NBC News poll published on Friday.

Seventy-nine percent of respondents say they want the president to go to receive congressional approval before taking any action.

The tough poll numbers for the White House come one day after members of Obama's national security team provided 26 lawmakers with an unclassified briefing to detail some of the intelligence that they say shows regime loyalists linked to Syria President Bashar Assad was responsible for an Aug. 21 chemical attack outside Damascus that left hundreds dead.

Has any evidence that Assad did this to his own people been released, yet? Or are they just saying they have proof, like Bush/Cheney did with Iraq?

[Satt]

deleted...I can't figure out how to post pictures

[_Xenu_]

I don't think this is even remotely close to WW3, but otherwise I agree with him on it that it is both illegal and stupid.

Yeah, I thought that was a bit of hyperbole, but he's right when he says this is nothing to trifle with. How many Middle Eastern countries are we going to piss off now?

Im not quite sure about that. This could grow to include quite a few countries, ranging from the US to Egypt, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and even China might get involved. If thats not a World War, its fairly close to one.

[Smartmarzipan]

Obama ready to strike in Syria

Obama Set for Limited Strike on Syria as British Vote No
Aug. 29th, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/po ... c=rss&_r=0

President Obama is prepared to move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria, administration officials said Thursday, despite a stinging rejection of such action by America's stalwart ally Britain and mounting questions from Congress.

But administration officials made clear that the eroding support would not deter Mr. Obama in deciding to go ahead with a strike. Pentagon officials said that the Navy had now moved a fifth destroyer into the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Each ship carries dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles that would probably be the centerpiece of any attack on Syria.

Even before the parliamentary vote, White House officials said, Mr. Obama decided there was no way he could overcome objections by Russia, Syria's longtime backer, to any resolution in the Security Council.

Although administration officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision, all indications suggest that a strike could occur soon after United Nations investigators charged with scrutinizing the Aug. 21 attack leave the country. They are scheduled to depart Damascus on Saturday.

The White House presented its case for military action to Congressional leaders on Thursday evening, trying to head off growing pressure from Democrats and Republicans to provide more information about the administration's military planning and seek Congressional approval for any action.

In a conference call with Republicans and Democrats, top officials from the State Department, the Pentagon and the nation's intelligence agencies asserted that the evidence was clear that Mr. Assad's forces had carried out the attack, according to officials who were briefed.

While the intelligence does not tie Mr. Assad directly to the attack, these officials said, the administration said the United States had both the evidence and legal justification to carry out a strike aimed at deterring the Syrian leader from using such weapons again.

Mr. Engel said that among the evidence described to members of Congress was an intercepted communication "from a high-level Syrian official" discussing the attack. "There is more than enough evidence if the president chooses to act," Mr. Engel said.

After the 90-minute conference call, some senior lawmakers were not persuaded that the Obama administration had made its case for military action in Syria. Representative Howard (Buck) McKeon, the California Republican who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Mr. Obama needed to make a forceful case to persuade both Congress and a "war weary" country.

"If he doesn't, I think he could have a real problem with the Congress and the American public," he said. "He's got a big sell."

Mr. Obama's rationale for a strike creates a parallel dilemma to the one that President George W. Bush confronted 10 years ago, when he decided to enter into a far broader war with nearly 150,000 American troops in Iraq without seeking an authorizing resolution in the United Nations. The Obama administration says that case differs sharply from its objectives in Syria.

In Iraq Mr. Bush was explicitly seeking regime change. In this case, White House officials argue, Mr. Obama is trying to enforce an international ban on chemical weapons and seeking to prevent their use in Syria, or against American allies.

"We have been trying to get the U.N. Security Council to be more assertive on Syria even before this incident," said Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. "The problem is that the Russians won't vote for any accountability."

The decision to proceed without Britain is remarkable, however. Even in the Iraq war, Mr. Bush relied on what he called a "coalition of the willing," led by Britain. Mr. Obama has made clear that this initiative would come from the United States, and that while he welcomed international participation, he was not depending on foreign forces for what would essentially be an operation conducted largely by the United States, from naval vessels off the Syrian coast.

[SilentFutility]

Our government has reached the point where they consider dropping a few bombs a friendly warning.

Fuckkkkkkkkk. THIS x 100000.


Everyone's talking about the global ramifications like they are the only reason why you shouldn't bomb people you've never had any contact with on the other side of the world.

Either help properly, or do nothing and accept that you are doing nothing. Don't just fire missiles at it and hope it goes away.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

It's all about war. You can't really bomb ANYONE and say, 'It's not an act of war.'
I'm split on this to be honest. I'm not anti war nor pro war. If the have a compelling reason in our best interest then go to war, but if it's to make money for the zikzak corporation then stay the fuck out.
On the other hand there were long standing chemical weapons bans set in place for very legitimate reasons.

[SilentFutility]

The president would be willing to retaliate against Syria on his own, without an international coalition, a spokesman said following the vote in London.

Fucking lol at that choice of words.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

the house of commons in britain just blocked their being in this war.

and Obama? he's ready to go it alone, despite the UN and no allies.

because of our national security. WHAT? how are we threatened?


Obama is doing exactly what he condemned bush for. he is turning into Bushes Mini-me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/2 ... 38922.html

Don't forget France!

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Has any evidence that Assad did this to his own people been released, yet? Or are they just saying they have proof, like Bush/Cheney did with Iraq?

Nope.

No evidence what-so-ever except anecdote and "Well, Assad has the capablity, it must have been him".

Whilst that might be true, nobody is saying "Wait...isn't the coaliation (The Free Syrian Army) fighting against Assad mainly run by Islamist extremists who are being funded and armed by other extremists that operate outside of Syria in the hope of extending a vision of Caliphate?"

The secular Syrian voice, a voice I would have supported 100%, died off long ago. It was shelled to death by the regime, and any who survived were beheaded by their 'allies' in the rebel factions.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Good for Kucinich.  He's right on the money.

I wrote a blog entry about WWIII last summer, it looks like the only thing I was wrong about was which part of the Syria-Iran alliance would be the target.  Of course supporting the Syrian rebels does weaken the Syria-Iran alliance.

Worst Case War Scenario

The least probable part of that blog entry is what India might do.

[The Whit]

I initially laughed off the idea of WWIII. see my other post in the other thread on this.


the more I think about it the less crazy it sounds.

we hit Syria. Syria and/or Iran take revenge by hitting israel, who then responds with great force. which in turn causes Iran and Syria to respond in kind. Plus they ask for Russia and China their allies to help. Israel asks for our help.

nobody plans for WWIII it just happens from a chain reaction.

Russia is already sending their own navy down there.

Obama is playing with fire.

http://world.time.com/2013/08/28/irania ... ia-attack/

[Colanth]

So basically what we're saying is, "we don't care who did it, we're going to attack the Syrian government".  Sounds like using 9-11 as the reason to attack Iraq.  (Aside from being totally stupid - we're attacking the government that's keeping an enemy of ours tied up?)

I'm SO disappointed by Obama.