U.S., allies preparing for probable strike on Syria

Comments (133)
ralphos wrote:

If were my unit and chemical warfare was used anywhere near us we would all be in full suits.
This is how you can tell it was Assad they were not suited up and had no fear.

Aug 26, 2013 11:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rgbviews wrote:

“The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity.”

Errr, John do you recall Hiroshima, Nagaski, (atomic bombing of civilians)? ….or Bagdad (cruise missles)? or Vietnam (agent orange)? ……or Gaza (phosphor bombing)?

Aug 26, 2013 11:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
marty70 wrote:

Ah yes, and years from now it will come out that there was either no chemicals and it was all staged or it was the foreign rebels.. [doesn't take a genius to figure out who did it. Assad's winning] there will be tens of thousands of civs killed, there will be an enquiry but no one will go to jail, then they all ride off into the sunset with a big ol retirement package..just like last time.

Aug 26, 2013 11:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Nothing is ever as it seems as the causes of the First World War a century ago showed. Perhaps now is the time for the West to reexamine its relationship with Russia, the former Communist Empire that is now a full-fledged European democracy, and invite and accept Russia’s advice on Syria rather than making it an angry enemy armed to the teeth with sophisticated weaponry, including space weapons, and thousands of nuclear missiles aimed at Soviet-era enemies — or which, with the twist of a mouse, could be retargeted to do so, including the atmosphere over tiny Israel whose entire military and public infrastructure would be permanently wiped out with a couple of high altitude blasts.
Time for the big boys to talk and badger Assad into calling free election after he and his people have been given iron clad international immunity from prosecution. It worked in South AFrica and to a large degree in Rwanda and the Balkans, so is possible in Syria.

Aug 26, 2013 11:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BruceBanner wrote:

“He said the U.N. inspectors could at most confirm that chemical weapons were used, not who used them, but that it was Assad’s government that has such weapons and the means of delivering them. He said Washington had additional information on the attack that it would make known soon.”

Even before 1991, Iraq had thousands of tons of chemical weapons, most of it easily transported 155-mm artillery projectiles or 122-mm rockets.

Turkey has just as much, right now.
Turkey supports the Syrian terrorist “rebels”.
Various journalists have reported seeing Turkish chemical weapons in rebel-held territory. Turkey police themselves have ARRESTED Syrian terrorists trying to smuggle chemical weapons out of Turkey, just this year.
The Syrian terrorists have MUCH more to gain by using chemical weapons and pinning the blame on Assad, than for Assad to use chemical weapons right after the UN team came to investigate uses of chemical weapons.

Kerry is lying. BOTH sides have the weapons and means of delivering them against Syrian civilians (how many REBELS were killed in this alleged attack?) – but one side has the clear MOTIVE to do so.

Aug 26, 2013 12:32am EDT  --  Report as abuse
rgbviews wrote:

John, your going to look pretty stupid if it is discovered that radical islamist rebel militias affiliated with al Qaeda used chemical weapons to draw the US into the Syrian conflict for target practice and/or recruiting purposes.

Aug 26, 2013 12:45am EDT  --  Report as abuse

At the end USA will send grounfd troops to the ME hostile enviroment. Like in Vietnam from 5.000 troops to 500.000 troops. Fighting against Hezbolah and Iran.
For what? Because French and British that have nothing to risk, and nothing to loose, want to please Qataris investors.
Pitty for the -once- great nation of America with the small leaders.

Aug 27, 2013 3:27am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Reuters1945 wrote:

“Washington warns Assad over ‘undeniable’ chemical weapons attack”

“U.S. points finger at Assad over Syria gas attack”

In any just world, there would be a three inch thick, Bullet Proof MIRROR, squarely positioned immediately in front of that pointing, American finger, thus reflecting that accusing finger straight back at the U.S.

According to John Kerry:

“What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world,” Kerry told reporters.

“The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable.”

Poor, poor, poor, Mr. Kerry. Did the man totally take leave of his senses when he made those statements, quite forgetting we now live in the age of the Internet and WikiLeaks in which it is so easy for people to access information and research facts. And separate truth from falsehood, and facts from propaganda.

Anyone who knows the incredible extent to which the US facilitated Saddam Hussein’s widespread use of chemical weapons in Saddam Hussein’s long war with Iran and also his gassing of thousands of Kurds, must feel a sense of utter revulsion listening to John Kerry’s latest pronouncements clearly intended to stir up the winds of war.

How is Kerry able to say the things he does and keep a straight face?

How is John Kerry able to sleep at night and even look at himself in the mirror after a night of troubled sleep, assuming he still retains any semblance of a conscience?

How can any sane human being at listening to Kerry not be immediately reminded of those timeless words that Attorney Joseph N. Welch, Esq. directed at Senator Joe McCarthy during the infamous Army-McCarthy Witch-hunt Hearings that took place on 9 June 1954.

Said Attorney Joseph Welch to Senator McCarthy:

“You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency? ”

Those words which Joseph N. Welch, Esq. directed at Senator McCarthy in 1954, might just as appropriately be directed at John Kerry, today, based on the knowingly hypocritical recent statements made by Kerry when the entire world now knows from De-Classified C.I.A. Documents the degree to which the US assisted Saddam Hussein in his use of such weapons in the 1980′s during Iraq’s war with Iran.

The following will come as a shock to the brain of many people who still cannot bring themselves to believe that those in the US who accuse others of evil acts, are not capable of and would never participate in Evil acts themselves.

Better fasten your safety belts before reading the following information.

An Exclusive “Foreign Policy”- FP- report just released reveals that CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam Hussein as he Gassed Iran.
As reported by Shane Harris and Mathew M. Aid :

“The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history — and still gave him a hand.”

Save this Link
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35973.htm

“The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America’s military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, “Foreign Policy” has learned.

“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.

“U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein’s government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.

“The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn’t have to. We already knew,” he told Foreign Policy.

“According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government.

The CIA declined to comment for this story.

“In contrast to today’s wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein’s widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.

“In the documents, the CIA said that Iran might not discover persuasive evidence of the weapons’ use — even though the agency possessed it. Also, the agency noted that the Soviet Union had previously used chemical agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions.

“It has been previously reported that the United States provided tactical intelligence to Iraq at the same time that officials suspected Hussein would use chemical weapons. But the CIA documents, which sat almost entirely unnoticed in a trove of declassified material at the National Archives in College Park, Md., combined with exclusive interviews with former intelligence officials, reveal new details about the depth of the United States’ knowledge of how and when Iraq employed the deadly agents.

“They show that senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.

“Top CIA officials, including the Director of Central Intelligence William J. Casey, a close friend of President Ronald Reagan, were told about the location of Iraqi chemical weapons assembly plants; that Iraq was desperately trying to make enough mustard agent to keep up with frontline demand from its forces; that Iraq was about to buy equipment from Italy to help speed up production of chemical-packed artillery rounds and bombs; and that Iraq could also use nerve agents on Iranian troops and possibly civilians.

“Officials were also warned that Iran might launch retaliatory attacks against U.S. interests in the Middle East, including terrorist strikes, if it believed the United States was complicit in Iraq’s chemical warfare campaign.

“As Iraqi attacks continue and intensify the chances increase that Iranian forces will acquire a shell containing mustard agent with Iraqi markings,” the CIA reported in a top secret document in November 1983. “Tehran would take such evidence to the U.N. and charge U.S. complicity in violating international law.”

“At the time, the military attaché’s office was following Iraqi preparations for the offensive using satellite reconnaissance imagery, Francona told Foreign Policy. According to a former CIA official, the images showed Iraqi movements of chemical materials to artillery batteries opposite Iranian positions prior to each offensive.

“Francona, an experienced Middle East hand and Arabic linguist who served in the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, said he first became aware of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Iran in 1984, while serving as air attaché in Amman, Jordan. The information he saw clearly showed that the Iraqis had used Tabun nerve agent (also known as “GA”) against Iranian forces in southern Iraq.

“The declassified CIA documents show that Casey and other top officials were repeatedly informed about Iraq’s chemical attacks and its plans for launching more. “If the Iraqis produce or acquire large new supplies of mustard agent, they almost certainly would use it against Iranian troops and towns near the border,” the CIA said in a top secret document.

“But it was the express policy of Reagan to ensure an Iraqi victory in the war, whatever the cost.
Read the full explosive report here:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35973.htm

Aug 27, 2013 4:18am EDT  --  Report as abuse
kenradke11 wrote:

“Would any state use chemicals or any other weapons of mass destruction in a place where its own forces are concentrated?

I can assure you that it was all done by areal bombardment and Assad’s forces where probably wearing gas masks or told to leave the area.
It is about time that justice is served. Assad must be punished for this hieness act. He will now pay the price regardless.

Aug 27, 2013 4:24am EDT  --  Report as abuse
kenradke11 wrote:

rgbviews wrote:

Forget the past rgbviews, my God Remember that anyhow and anyway these kinds of hieness acts must not go unpunished!! Sure the USA commited these atrocities but we are in the now and this can’t be allowed in this modern day history.Especially in the middle east.

Aug 27, 2013 4:29am EDT  --  Report as abuse
TruWorldPeace wrote:

“There are precedents. In 1999 NATO attacked Serbia, a Russian ally, without a Security Council resolution, arguing that action was needed to protect civilians in Kosovo.”

Very true, except the US and NATO were not broke, Russia was not so confident, and China was not a rising power about to take over the world soon.

Aug 27, 2013 5:22am EDT  --  Report as abuse
hginandon wrote:

LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY.
THE US CLAIMS THAT SYRIA USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS LAST WEEK TO KILL HUNDREDS, MAYBE THOUSANDS, OF PEOPLE INCLUDING WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
NOW, THE US IS CONSIDERING COUNTERING WITH CRUISE MISSILES AND OTHER “LIMITED” ACTIONS FROM NAVAL POSITIONS IN THE MED. THAT IS TO SAY, THE US WILL ATTACK ASSAD’S SYRIAN MILITIA AND AIM ONLY TO KILL GOVERNMENT FORCES AND LEADERSHIP. DO YOU THINK THE TARGETS WILL GATHER TOGETHER TO MAKE THE “PERFECT TARGET” FOR THE CRUISE MISSILES? OR, MOST LIKELY, WILL HUNDREDS, MAYBE THOUSANDS, OF INNOCENT SYRIANS, INCLUDING WOMEN AND CHILDREN, ALSO BE KILLED.
SOUNDS TO ME LIKE VERY RATIONAL THINKING IN WASHINGTON. NO WONDER THE GOVERNMENT HAS PROBLEMS GOVERNING WITH AND EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES THAT THINK SO CLEARLY.

Aug 27, 2013 8:01am EDT  --  Report as abuse
hginandon wrote:

LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY.
THE US CLAIMS THAT SYRIA USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS LAST WEEK TO KILL HUNDREDS, MAYBE THOUSANDS, OF PEOPLE INCLUDING WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
NOW, THE US IS CONSIDERING COUNTERING WITH CRUISE MISSILES AND OTHER “LIMITED” ACTIONS FROM NAVAL POSITIONS IN THE MED. THAT IS TO SAY, THE US WILL ATTACK ASSAD’S SYRIAN MILITIA AND AIM ONLY TO KILL GOVERNMENT FORCES AND LEADERSHIP. DO YOU THINK THE TARGETS WILL GATHER TOGETHER TO MAKE THE “PERFECT TARGET” FOR THE CRUISE MISSILES? OR, MOST LIKELY, WILL HUNDREDS, MAYBE THOUSANDS, OF INNOCENT SYRIANS, INCLUDING WOMEN AND CHILDREN, ALSO BE KILLED.
SOUNDS TO ME LIKE VERY RATIONAL THINKING IN WASHINGTON. NO WONDER THE GOVERNMENT HAS PROBLEMS GOVERNING WITH AND EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES THAT THINK SO CLEARLY.

Aug 27, 2013 8:01am EDT  --  Report as abuse
dbben wrote:

??…”Moral Obscenity”

i think when all is said and done, when the end finally reveals the truth, it will be America that has acted with “moral obscenity”.

the mankind has existed for millions of years and civilizations for tens of thousdands of years.

now all of a sudden, this 200 year country called america has decided it will make the world as it sees fit.

i think it is america that is the worlds enemy and has attacked virtually every country in the world with either bombs, economics, morality, ethics, technology, etc….

i would not be surprised that if we made those chemical weapons and sold them to syria at a profit and knowing good and well they would never be allowed to use them.

Aug 27, 2013 8:45am EDT  --  Report as abuse
VultureTX wrote:

@rgbviews

thanks for proving once again you don’t even know what some of the terms in contention mean. Your “chemical weapons” rant is amusing and another reason informed people dismiss your views.

/note: I still don’t buy the Syrian government was the “actor” in this incident, but I also know that Western Intelligence was not the supplier of the “agents”, Syrian army bases were the source.

Aug 27, 2013 9:22am EDT  --  Report as abuse
westernshame wrote:

kenradke11 wrote:

“Sure the USA commited these atrocities but we are in the now and this can’t be allowed in this modern day history.”

interesting, is there a statute of limitations on war crimes and atrocities?? would / should the Nazi’s have been given a free pass because their crimes were in the past.

it is less than a decade ago that the US was using depleted uranium and phosphorous in iraq, but in your eyes they deserve a free pass?? would you like to tell that to the parents of the children being born with extra limbs or no limbs at all?

crimes against humanity and the slaughter of the innocent should never be forgotten and those proven responsible should always be held accountable for their actions.

Aug 27, 2013 9:29am EDT  --  Report as abuse
rgbviews wrote:

kenradke11 wrote “Assad must be punished for this hieness act”.
Have you seen proof that it was Assad? Do you think it possible it could have been a radical element of the rebel forces, or a rogue element of the Syrian military, or some radicals manipulated by the CIA or Mossad?

I want proof from our leaders before we start the killing. Gone are the days when we can trust our leaders (thanks to Bush).

Aug 27, 2013 9:41am EDT  --  Report as abuse
cincirobaccio wrote:

Assad’s enemies now have carte blanche. Gas a few Syrians and the West will beat up Assad for them! How many times is this to go on?

Aug 27, 2013 9:52am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Financial crisis, Japan earthquate, Europe debt crisis and US debt ceiling all tanked stocks. In the long run, none of these mattered. Neither will Syria.

Aug 27, 2013 9:57am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Financial crisis, Japan earthquate, Europe debt crisis and US debt ceiling all tanked stocks. In the long run, none of these mattered. Neither will Syria.

Aug 27, 2013 9:57am EDT  --  Report as abuse
keenan77 wrote:

Does it matter how these people were killed? Was killing thousands in Sudan with machetes somehow better than getting gassed? Are collateral casualty children somehow justified with getting hit by a cluster instead of gassed? This is war, and the West won’t find its white knight on either side. Think Iraq. Think Afghanistan. Oh yeah, ancient history i guess. America needs to start acting in the best interest for its long-term survival. This ain’t doing it. Think of the money and the potential backlash from terrorism and its own citizenry (great if it means electing a lame government…) Obama is whiter and waspier than anyone would have ever thought. The war machine is loving it.

Aug 27, 2013 9:58am EDT  --  Report as abuse
rgbviews wrote:

Why pick this particular “moral obscenity”.

Why not:
Selling cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia, or
Bombing Gazan civilians with phosphor, or
Cruise missile strikes in highly populated downtown Bagdad, or
Bombing wedding parties in Afghanistan, or
Torture of innocents in Guantanamo, or
…….

Could it be that this cherry-picked obscenity suits a political agenda of the West?

Aug 27, 2013 9:59am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Tolan wrote:

It’s a joke? They are so naive to hope that there will be somebody willing to discuss peace after bombings? It will be a guagmire and escalation + a lot of killed and flying

Aug 27, 2013 10:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Who on the U.S. right-wing wants war so bad? Haven’t we learned anything in America’s adulthood? If we don’t learn how to solve military circumstances through diplomatic means, the world is in the same exact place it was prior to World War I and World War II. Who wants a World War so bad? Who is pushing so hard for this? How can the world think of globalization if it can’t even handle military conflicts?

Aug 27, 2013 10:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
rgbviews wrote:

VultureTX, what “chemical weapons rant” are you referring to?
I fully understand your ploy to demonize and/or discredit anyone with opposing views, but I think you shoud take the time to read more carefully.

Aug 27, 2013 10:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse

If the world cannot handle local military conflicts what is it going to do when the really big issues come up?

Aug 27, 2013 10:08am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Whatsgoingon wrote:

WMD episode II with another dictator and another ME country. What has changed?

Aug 27, 2013 10:17am EDT  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

George Bush and Tony Blair: Iraq is aquiring nuclear weapons. U.S went to war, but no evidence of nuclear wepons was ever found.

Barack Hussein Obama II and David Cameron: Syrian govt. gassed its own people during internal conflict with Al Qaeda and other terrorist insurgents. Winds of war are blowing but we shall see who actually launched the gas attack, eventually. Hubris of American and British chief executives dictates scepticism.

Aug 27, 2013 10:30am EDT  --  Report as abuse

@rgbviews, your are not different then the right wing extremists out there that have been punding on their war drums for years. Just on the extreme other side.

Thankfully President Obama does not listen to either of the extremists, what is needed is a thoughtful,pragmatic approach, just like he and his administration are doing.

Aug 27, 2013 10:36am EDT  --  Report as abuse
VVertuls wrote:

Anyway humanity has only three scenarios to finally end slaughtering each other:
1. WW3. Massive world war with 2-3 billion casualities, evenly ditributed across continents (effect expected to expire in 200-300 years)
2. To ban all males (and fighting feminists)from governing states/armies.
3. Massive and painful alien invasion. As long as there will be aliens to shoot at, people will have common target. Effect will last as long as there will be plenty of dangerous aliens.

Aug 27, 2013 10:40am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Rgbviews, to add,

since when did the USA bomb Gazan civilians with phosphor?

Using HIGHLY accurate cruise missles in Baghdad, on targeted strikes of military C & C centers is not a ‘war-crime’. was there a small amount of secondary casualties, maybe, but not like we are targeting civilians, in fact we tried to minimize civilian casualties. Yes Iraq was a debacle, but not because of this and if Obama was President after 9/11 Iraq woudl have NEVER been a target.

The bombing of wedding parties was an accident. Gassing civilians isnt.

While I think Gitmo is a stain on our history and should have never happened, to characterize it as ‘Torture of innocents in Guantanamo’ is just plain wrong. The prisoners are hardly innocent, and no torture occured at Gitmo. Did torture occur in other places and is it reprehinsable? yes it did.

With regards to cluster bombs, these are not ‘old-school’ cluster bombs, there are timers on all the munitions to disarm themselves so they do not lay around in wait forever.

Like I said you are really not any different then right-wing extremists, divorced from reality.

SO there you are now officially discredited on this thread. And not one personal attack, purely attacking your ‘facts’.

Aug 27, 2013 10:47am EDT  --  Report as abuse

@the rest of you USA bashers, President Obama is NOTHING LIKE President Bush when it comes to the use of the USA military. While Obama can not reverse the domestic cluster**** that Bush created becuase it requires Congressional action, with regards to Foreign Policy/use of military as Commander in Chief it changed the day he came into office.

I am glad we now have a thoughtful, pragmatic, compassionate President that will only use USA military might only when necessary.

Aug 27, 2013 10:52am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Butch_from_PA wrote:

Shock and awe – we missed – only got a few kids working with their parents that day.

All my life I’ve lived with USA war on T.V. Why should I think it would ever stop. Watching the stock boards, I know now it will never stop.

Aug 27, 2013 10:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Sunni versus Shi’ite, the 21st century version of Northern Ireland and Catholics versus Protestants. Religion at it’s finest hour.
In the name of God I kill you, your family and the friends of your family. I declare God loves me more than you because I have a more weapons. The Devil made me use chemical weapons, but God forgives me because God is great.
The founding fathers of America and it’s constitution were truly wise in separating church and state. All Americans should recognize the current religion based conflicts in the world as a prime example of why this is true.

Aug 27, 2013 11:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse
kracked1nut wrote:

I just read that we are contemplating a military strike? I’m pretty sure the concensus is: “stay out of it”.
So why, do we the people have no say as to what our politicians do? I’m getting sick of this. Maybe we should start an American spring uprising and bring our politicians back into check. “Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.” – Abraham Lincoln.
Our politicians do what they want, so what makes them any different than despot rulers?
These rulers have some warped concepts. We don’t live in the stone age anymore and information is abundant and at our fingertips.
This is pure bullocks.

Aug 27, 2013 11:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Slammy wrote:

Just about everyone seems to agree that chemical weapons were used. So, does it matter who actually did it? If it was the regime, of course they need to be stopped. If so, it sets a bad precedent to other countries knowing they can get away with something like this.
If it was the rebels, and these rebels are true Al Qaeda terrorists by the definition of the words, why would we not want to pry these weapons from their hands? If they are using them in Syria, who is next? Either way, at this point, going in to find and destroy the weapons seems like the only logical choice no matter who fired the shots.
Now, in my opinion, from what I have read, seen and watched happen over the past two years, my bet is that the regime did it. They lied/were-just-plain-wrong, about shooting their own people, they lied/were-just-plain-wrong about their even being a revolution (remember the few armed gangs), they They lied/were-just-plain-wrong about Homs being liberated in 2012, they They lied/were-just-plain-wrong about the battle for Aleppo being over by last October… about the only thing I have not seem lying about is the naked woman in Al Assad’s emails, aka The Cowardly Lion, being his mistress. The regime has also shown this mindset that they can do whatever they want (shoot their own people, fire scuds at urban areas, drop barrel bombs) and the opposition better get used to the rest of the world doing nothing about it. Fear, the regime has tried to instill fear through these acts so chemical weapons is a next logical step.
Although a few dozen towns in Homs province and one district of Homs has been captured over the previous two months, the regime does not appear to be making progress anywhere else. Aleppo is now completely surrounded, the Latakia offensive was repulsed but with minimum casualties and I think that was a diversion. Deir ex-Zur has become hotly contested and, from last reports, is mostly in the hands of the opposition. Turkey just sent 400 tons of weapons, which might be the reason Aleppo is now surround. As for Damascus, the rebels have pushed so close to the city center over the past few weeks they can now lob mortars straight into the governmental district. Then, chemical weapon attack happened to be in the staging area and supply lines for the Damascus northern offensive. Then, the day after the chem attack, the regime tries to storm those areas without wearing chemical protection. And, as what normally happens, they failed to make progress. But if there was just a chemical attack, wouldn’t you think these soldiers would want to be protected from another attack? I think the advantage Hezbollah brought has become greatly diminished as these forces are now spread out, worn out and are now fighting far enough from the Lebanese border where they have lost their logistical advantage.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts. I do not see things going well for the regime in the long run or having much luck in the short run. There are those who have been calling me wrong for almost two years, stating the regime is just about to win this conflict. Two years later, the war is still being fought and I am still making fun of the extent a nation can bungle a situation this badly. Idiots, the Syrian Regime is run by total idiots I say!
Go Non-Terrorist, Non-Chemical Weapon using Rebels!

Aug 27, 2013 11:22am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JoeObserver wrote:

Rhetoric. Obama Administration knows they can’t afford another war because they don’t have the money. Secondly , public opinion will go against Obama. If they still go to war, then it will be suicidal, because they will not only loose the public support but also the economy will tank. Sanity should prevail.

Aug 27, 2013 11:23am EDT  --  Report as abuse
dwf1 wrote:

It appears that defense contractors are pushing for this for the most part. I guess they have grown tired of corned beef like most of Americans have on their table and want to get back to their staple of steak and lobster. If you have ever seen one of their yards or warehouses they have a lot of hardware to sell. But then again it sure helps as a diversion from the real issues American want to address like the economy and JOBS. This is not America’s fight let them blow each other up and go away. Americans DO NOT WANT ANOTHER WAR! Who is going to pay for it?

Aug 27, 2013 11:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Maxwells wrote:

It’s highly unlikely that Assad invited the UN inspectors into his country to investigate chemical weapons, and two-days later attacks innocent civilians with chemical weapons.

The fact Obama is rushing to bomb sites in Syria suggests Obama knows the Rebels used the chemicsl weapons and needs to destroy the evidence before UN inspectors can link its use to the Rebels and their friends in the CIA that shipped them weapons from Benghazi Libya.

Aug 27, 2013 11:27am EDT  --  Report as abuse
BethA wrote:

It is clear our leaders have no interest in representing us anymore. Demand change! Let’s make a move for Direct Democracy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

Aug 27, 2013 11:37am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Maxwells wrote:

The CIA outpost in Benghazi Lybia had been ‘destroying’ Moamar Gaddafi’s weapons up until the attack on the US mission there, chances are high that the weapons were actually being shipped to Syrian Rebels and included chemical artillary shells, this story below confirms chemical weapons were in US control in Libya

bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16650192

Aug 27, 2013 11:41am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Mylena wrote:

That’s very wrong!!! is not US fight!!! It is internal fight between citizens!!!!!! It is not our fight!!!!!! Home first!!! US first!!!!!!

Aug 27, 2013 11:48am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Slammy wrote:

@JoeObserver

“Obama Administration knows they can’t afford another war because they don’t have the money. ”

The Sixth Fleet is sitting off the coast with who knows how many cruise missiles. It doesn’t cost that much to push the button to fire them. The things have a shelf life anyway and maintenance becomes more expensive the older they get. Might actually have some cost savings.

“public opinion will go against Obama”

Take a look at the polls, Obama’s public opinion is already down. He does not have to run for reelection so I doubt he care too much about popular opinion. But war historically gives a short term boost in the polls, so this could be good for him. Besides, this might help distract from some of the other problems.

“they will not only loose the public support but also the economy will tank.”

American support seems low for a conflict, true. However, dating back the Reagan era, Americans have not become very upset firing cruise missiles, launching air strikes and using limited ground troops. Ie, Libya, Panama, Serbia, Kosovo, Iraqi no fly zone… If there are no or only limited boots on the ground, I do not see the American population having million man march on Washington to protest. As for the economy, I do not see surgical strikes making a big differences. The replacement of the missiles/bombs boosts domestic production but even that expense is a small blip of military expenditure. Besides, the French and British paid most of the cost for the Libyan war. The French and British created this headache in Syria 90 years ago so I would think they should bear the brunt of the expense.
Time will tell.

Aug 27, 2013 11:49am EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Even if NATO bombs Syria…. how will anyone be able to tell? That place looks like a Mexican drug war with rabies.

We can save ourselves some money and just lie, and say we did it. “Yep, we bombed it last Tuesday. Bombed it all to hell. Just Google ‘Syria’ and see for yourself.”

Aug 27, 2013 12:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
sjfella wrote:

In every poll I’ve seen the overwhelming majority of Americans are against military involvement in Syria. Our politicians are to represent the majority of Americans, not their own corrupt selfish interests. Time the military overthrew the traitors and we start from scratch. Enough is enough!

Aug 27, 2013 12:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Slammy wrote:

@sjfella

“In every poll I’ve seen the overwhelming majority of Americans are against military involvement in Syria. ”

Pretty much, but I doubt we will witness mass demonstrations by launching missiles and air strikes.

“Our politicians are to represent the majority of Americans…”

Not entirely, America is a Republic, not a real Democracy. Look at Switzerland for that example, people vote on everything, even new citizenships. We elect people to represent our interests and make decisions on behalf of us. If we do not like those decisions, we vote them out. Besides, if were worked by majority rule, we would likely still have school segregation and other minority rights issues would have never come to pass. In America, a vocal dedicated minority can beat an apathetic immoral majority.

“…not their own corrupt selfish interests”

I am not really sure who in the US will personally benefit from this…
do you know? Who?

“Time the military overthrew the traitors and we start from scratch.”

So you want an American coup and civil war? I will give you this, that is one way to avoid the Syrian problem.

Aug 27, 2013 12:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
VultureTX wrote:

#rgbv

sorry you message was about “moral” issues not “chemical” issues. And even then you could not focus on the US. When pressed your morals are obviously partisan and not global, so I apologize that your message was not coherent to an english speaking reader here.

/always good to see the Shiite view, since oxen can’t cover all these threads.

Aug 27, 2013 12:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rgbviews wrote:

USAPragmatist2
First of all I am an Obama supporter, but I fear he cannot exercise his judgement in the face of a belligerent Congress.
On the other points:
I never said the US bombed Gaza. What I implied is that it failed to label it a “moral obscenity”.
You’re claim of “a small amount of secondary casualties” in Bagdad is an understatement and insulting to the citizens of Iraq. The US was not targeting citizens but knew full-well that “accidents” were bound to happen in the “Shock and Awe” campaign. This to me is “moral obscenity”.
The “accidental” bombings in Afghanistan went on for years and years, with little concern for collateral damage. This to me is “moral obscenity”.
Your claim that “no torture occured at Gitmo” is widely known to be false, and to claim that no prisoners at Gitmo were innocent is also false. Gitmo remains a “moral obscenity”.
With regard to the cluster bombs I sure hope the Saudis got the ones with the timers and hope they remember to set the timers to expire in this current century.

PS. I am not a USA basher. I am a US government foreign policy basher.

Aug 27, 2013 12:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Brazilian1 wrote:

So sad.

On the other hand, Hezbollah fighting Al Qaeda is really fun, insn’t it?

Aug 27, 2013 12:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

U.S. threatens to turn Syrian rubble to MORE rubble.

Like….. to eleven, man.

Aug 27, 2013 12:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Brazilian1 wrote:

Interesting hypotheses involving Hezbollah, by Pesach Benson:

Four Hezbollah fighters who were exposed to chemical agents in Syria are now being treated in a Beirut hospital. A source told the Daily Star that the four “came into contact with chemical agents while searching a group of rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar over the weekend.”

In other words, they stumbled upon a rebel cache of chemical weapons.

A likely story?

One alternative explanation is (pass the popcorn) Hezbollah’s men were collateral damage from Assad’s chemical attack. An equally plausible possibility — but more alarming — is that Hezbollah was handling the chemical weapons.

Aug 27, 2013 1:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BlueDevil wrote:

Why should ASSAD will take all the fun (Killing Syrians)..Let US(USA,UK,FRA) take this….. Assad killed thousands … we will prove that we can kill more….

Aug 27, 2013 1:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
allotta wrote:

Ach! If you’re going to use “big” words, learn how to spell them correctly! hieness- heinous, guagmire- quagmire, and I’m sure there are others, just happened to catch those.

Aug 27, 2013 1:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Yashmak wrote:

A strike on Syria, here and now, is sheer idiocy. It will not bring stability to the region, safety to the civilians there, or an end to the Syrian struggle that is advantageous to the west.

I was actually in favor of US intervention there, back when there was the potential to replace a proxy of Iran (Assad) with a secular democracy. Now, however, even if the rebels win, it’s the jihadists who now hold all the sway. The opportunity has evaporated.

Aug 27, 2013 1:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Slammy wrote:

Anyone know what the worst case scenario is when bombing up a stockpile of chemical weapons? Would the weapons be incinerated, or would this just push them into the air exposing everything withing reach? I would imagine the latter but surely this has been thought through before.

Aug 27, 2013 1:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

@rgbviews, I too am an Obama supporter, about the only thing I have not agreed with his judgement on is the whole NSA spying thing, mainly because IMO it is giving those that try and terrorize us exactly what they want.

However I beleive I am more to the middle then yourself, the world is a complicated many times bad place, you can not fight those that wish to kill you, or gas their own populations with ‘kid gloves’. While I do not want to get involved in foreign wars, I believe since we have the world’s most powerful military, we have a moral obligation to try and discourage vile acts like the gassing of civilians.

While at the same time I beleive the ‘Bush doctrine’ invading sovereign countries just because they might have WMD’s that they might give to terrorists was VERY counter-productive to the actual goal of stamping out extremism.

There is a middle ground to follow, which is even harder and requires more thought then a total ‘hands off’ or a total ‘we are going to take you out’ type of strategy.

But this is why I am glad we have a man like Obama in office, because I feel as if he realized this also.

Aug 27, 2013 1:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

@rgbviews, I too am an Obama supporter, about the only thing I have not agreed with his judgement on is the whole NSA spying thing, mainly because IMO it is giving those that try and terrorize us exactly what they want.

However I beleive I am more to the middle then yourself, the world is a complicated many times bad place, you can not fight those that wish to kill you, or gas their own populations with ‘kid gloves’. While I do not want to get involved in foreign wars, I believe since we have the world’s most powerful military, we have a moral obligation to try and discourage vile acts like the gassing of civilians.

While at the same time I beleive the ‘Bush doctrine’ invading sovereign countries just because they might have WMD’s that they might give to terrorists was VERY counter-productive to the actual goal of stamping out extremism.

There is a middle ground to follow, which is even harder and requires more thought then a total ‘hands off’ or a total ‘we are going to take you out’ type of strategy.

But this is why I am glad we have a man like Obama in office, because I feel as if he realized this also.

Aug 27, 2013 1:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

@rgbviews to add, the USA basher comment was directed at others, mainly those saying or implying that we are supporting Al-Qaeda, which is blatantly false.

Aug 27, 2013 2:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

@Brazilian1, to quote you ‘On the other hand, Hezbollah fighting Al Qaeda is really fun, insn’t it?’

I agree, about the only thing the extreme Shiite and Sunni’s hate more then freedom is each other.

Aug 27, 2013 2:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
VultureTX wrote:

@usapragmatist

Well you are doing better than I in discerning what RGBV says. To my reading he is a typical pro muslim , anti US (as in the US has not done anything moral since before WWII ended) and obviously an anti-semite(because he only blames israel for acts that Jordan and Egypt also have done since WWII). and obviously RGBV saves his “moral outrage” for western countries which is why I say he is partisan when claiming the moral “high ground”. WP bombing in Gaza ? Never happened , mortar and arty WP smoke rounds that destroyed Gen 1 Soviet surplus NV equipment that Hamas had, yes.

/but I still don’t accuse Assad (or his brother , the commander of that base) for this Chem attack since the only reason Assad would benefit was if he could drag Iran into a war against the Sunnis (and their western supporters).

Aug 27, 2013 2:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ALALAYIIIAAAA wrote:

to the americans with the huge debt to the french with the collapsed economy and to the america’s pets english: are you “syrias”?
to radical muslims: if you want to choose your next target pick one of them.these countries are not “west” but far west!!!!we ,the modern world got nothing to do with these apes

Aug 27, 2013 2:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
oxen wrote:

Well this administration will turn out to be worse than that of Bush because they cannot stick to their own principles. Obama now is a complete opposite of what many thought he would be when they voted for him. He has the worst advisers possible and operates on whims of UK/France and Israel leaders. Syria issue should be solved through UN consensus and not by USA/NATO/Israel nefarious schemes.

Aug 27, 2013 2:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
matthewslyman wrote:

> “[Russian] Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov criticized Washington for cancelling bilateral talks on Syria that were set for Wednesday.”

— Strange indeed. One would think this would be top of the agenda, even if new priorities meant that more junior civil servants would attend in place of their superiors.

> “While we take worse than half measures and the conflict goes on, it becomes more regional, spreading to Lebanon, spreading to Jordan, and of course Syria and Iraq become al Qaeda transit zones as we watch Iraq unravel,” [John McCain] told Reuters.

— Indeed, this conflict has proven that we cannot prevent conflicts from spreading across international borders merely by standing off and refusing to get involved, as the Iranians are suggesting that we should do. It has also proven that we cannot prevent Middle-Eastern conflicts from killing tens/hundreds of thousands of people, merely by refusing to put our own “boots on the ground”.

Many Western voters are asking, who’s going to PAY for this new armed intervention. Will the wealthy Middle-Eastern nations help pay something toward our contribution to their security? Or will our grandchildren and great-grandchildren pay for the security of Arabs, while the wealthiest Arabs use their vast financial wealth via anonymous holding companies to buy up all the property and demand rent from our grandchildren? This surely has to be a two-way street.

Aug 27, 2013 2:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

@oxen, not true at all. Obama has always been clear that he will use military force if it can avert a potential slaughter of civivlians. I am so sick of this claim that Obama is just like Bush, it is a night and day difference.

Aug 27, 2013 3:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Yashmak wrote:

“@the rest of you USA bashers, President Obama is NOTHING LIKE President Bush when it comes to the use of the USA military.”

@USAPragmatist

You’re right. Bush sought the consent of congress when it came to the use of the US military.

Aug 27, 2013 3:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Louieloueye wrote:

Another U.S. Boots on the ground and it wasn’t congress that put them there.

Aug 27, 2013 3:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Luna1984 wrote:

Dictator needs to be removed. Russia and China needs to be attacked first before any other country. They are the one supporting and empowering the dictators in the middle east.

Aug 27, 2013 3:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

Bush wasn’t stupid enough to risk all out world war by attacking a clear ally of Iran and Russia. Obama and his ill advised red line comments about Syria. Now he has to go to war to save face. Well Iran and Russia will have to go to war with America to save face.

Aug 27, 2013 3:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Loucleve2 wrote:

Because we dont negotiate with terrorists.

We Finance them.

Obama.

Aug 27, 2013 3:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

UN investigator said on Swiss TV that “”Syrian Rebels Used Sarin Nerve Gas, Not Assad’s Army”

Read this link

http://www.livetradingnews.com/un-official-syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-assads-army-6636.htm

Testimony from victims now strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin Nerve Gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior UN diplomat said Monday.
Carla del Ponte, a member of the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.
But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons (CW), according to the BBC, she added that more investigation was needed.

Aug 27, 2013 3:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USARealist wrote:

USAPragmatist2,
The inconsistency I see with Obama (and this is not unique to Obama to be fair) is the USA strategy to “avert a potential slaughter of civilians”.
Really, Assad has been slaughtering civilians for 2 years now – he’s just been doing it with conventional arms. So who cares if he used chemical arms or not? For this reason, I wonder why Assad used chemical arms. Is he really evil? Is he just stupid? Or maybe he really didn’t do it as a few commenters suggested.

Regardless, Slaughtering is slaughtering, right?
Obama may be more “careful” than Bush, I’ll give you that. However, being careful gets people killed too. I’ll admit though, there is no easy solution. The same drive-by journalist/commenators who cry over the dead bodies now and blame the USA for doing nothing, will turn around and blame the USA later for collateral damage when we try to help.

Aug 27, 2013 3:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
tohidu wrote:

Western forces want to punish the Syrian government for use of chemical weapons. But who will actually die?

Why, the very same civilians the western forces claim to be protecting.

If it weren’t for the horrendous suffering and death involved, this simpleton duplicity would be laughable.

Aug 27, 2013 3:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Jan_from_MD wrote:

What in God’s name are we doing even contemplating involving ourselves with a sovereign nation fighting a civil war on the other side of the world? This is none of our business. It’s sunni vs. shiite and has been for over a thousand years and always will be. Let them work it out on their own terms. Congress mind your own business and take care of your own at home. Get real!

Aug 27, 2013 3:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Slammy wrote:

@thenewworld

“Well Iran and Russia will have to go to war with America to save face.”

I thought I read that Russia, Putin, announced today or yesterday that they hoped the West would be smart enough not to attack, but that Russia had no plans to intervene if we did. Which to me says, we know you are right and have a legit reason to do so, but please don’t.

Also keep in mind, Russia has historically been poor at fighting wars
outside their borders and especially ones not directly adjacent to their territory. I would be surprised if Russia has the current logistical capability to maintain a solid military front in Syria.

Aug 27, 2013 3:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Do a couple of airstrikes. Commitment met.

Aug 27, 2013 4:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

@USARealist, yes there is not easy solution, that is why each situation needs to be judged on its own merits. Maybe that is why there is this inconsistency you speak of. Bush 2 was very consistent but look where that got us. Looking at world events with blinders on, e.g this happens so we do this every time, while simpler on the mind is not the right way to do it. It takes thought and a level of pragmatism that I feel this President has, while the previous did not.

Aug 27, 2013 4:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

And to all those saying the American public does not want to get involved, that is true, except polls done asking if military intervention is warranted in the case of chemical weapons being used, around 55%-60% are in favor of using military intervention, but not ground troops. Which is not even in the discussion.

And I am one of those that does not want to get involved unless chemical weapons are used, and then NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND!

Aug 27, 2013 4:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
vit1868 wrote:

Together with the statement “Assad applied the chemical weapon” it is necessary to declare at once “. he is recognized as the mad maniac the suicide ” because when FSA beat “on all fronts”, and to the country there arrived the chemical weapon inspectors, not to find any more any distinct explanation for Assad’s such order!

Other business of opposition (to the terrorists ready for the sake of Allah and the easily to couple of thousands. to ruin). To them (suffering now defeats, and waiting the help of the USA and the West) this attack (was) “simply vital”.

Having alas gone on the SIMPLE way = having passed all responsibility on Assad, we will encourage such terrible EVIL (ready to kill couple of thousands. with children for the sake of a victory) which to us still “will halloo” then!

ragments (of missiles), as well as traces of the impact of toxic substances HB soil and grass for 2 or even 3 weeks will not scatter!

Aug 27, 2013 4:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Lemming wrote:

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome… praying for peace, the sick and children along with those who wish for peace!

Aug 27, 2013 4:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
cbj wrote:

@Reuters1945,

Pontificate and pretend to be erudite.

What is your POINT?
You drone on and on and there is nothing there . . . it’s a void . . . it’s a waste of space.

Breaking New! Flash! Stop the press! The US armed Iraq!

Um, you been under a rock? This is common knowledge. It’s called a ‘Proxy War’. Any MORON should be able to do a search “List of Proxy Wars” and be far and away better informed than you.

Here’s a HOT TIP the US was involved with the Bay of Pigs invasion attempt.

Aug 27, 2013 4:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
cbj wrote:

@dbben
Nah, we attack the world with McDonalds and Levis and Rock and Roll and HOLLYWOOD!

Aug 27, 2013 4:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
NBE wrote:

I have read all the way down the page, and still have two questions: Were chemical strikes actually made? If so, who made them? If the answers are in the article or the comments, I am sorry, but I missed them.

Aug 27, 2013 4:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USARealist wrote:

@tohidu,
We can argue the politics for sure, but your comment is just plain stupid. Our military is not only the best in the world, but they are extremely good at minimizing collateral damage (as are our allies) with few exceptions. Regardless of the politics of Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe more civilians were saved in the end vs doing nothing. Eventually Saddam (or whoever in Iraq) or the Taliban (Afghanistan) would have killed more of their own people. That’s what tyrannical leaders do. We saved many in Bosnia and at least tried in Somalia, and many other places. When we do nothing (Sudan, Ruwanda,etc), more people die – EVERY TIME. The USA is one of the only countries in the world capable of having this much power, and still doing good with it. It’s just too bad we can’t help everyone.

Aug 27, 2013 4:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
cbj wrote:

@USAPragmatist2

what is needed is a thoughtful,pragmatic approach, just like he and his administration are doing.

Am I missing something?
Isn’t Kerry part of the Obama administration?
Isn’t he the one being accused of ‘Sabre rattling’?

Wow, talk about blind submission to a political agenda.

Aug 27, 2013 4:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MikeBarnett wrote:

The US, Britain, and France prepare for another intervention. France’s Hollande faces economic failures at home, so he needs a foreign war to distract the French people from their declining fiscal fortunes. The US and Britain want to prove that they remain “important” in the international community. These three worthless failures have no idea what they are fighting to achieve nor how to achieve anything other than their disastrous defeat when they bring islamic insurgents to power in another middle eastern country.

Assad is winning the war and has no reason to use chemical weapons. The Saudis and their Sunni Gulf state allies have the resources and the chemical facilities that could make chemical warfare agents. These Arab countries have decades of experience helping the West with false flag attacks, starting with the 1980′s anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan. For some reason, the West is determined to give al Qaeda Syria with most of its weapons intact. This will allow direct attacks by al Qaeda against Israel, their primary target in the world. With a conventional military, the backing of the Sunni Arab oil states on the southern Persian Gulf, and their own fanatical devotion to their cause, they might succeed in destroying Israel where previous efforts have failed. The extermination of the Israelis will end the Arab-Israeli wars because wars cannot be fought by the dead.

Aug 27, 2013 4:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
cbj wrote:

@ALALAYIIIAAAA

And finally wisdom from the peanut gallery.
Gee, France is bailing out the US? The US is in debt to France?
Just where do you get your facts? A Ouija board? Magic 8 ball?
Europe is going the way of Greece, let me know how it works out.
Also, wasn’t France one of the major pot stirrers in the ‘Great Game’.
Much of the Middle East and Africa was part of the French Colonial system and a brutal system it was. The English colonial system was significantly less oppressive and please tell me just what colonial empire the US has EVER had in the Area?
You have been hoodwinked.

Aug 27, 2013 4:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MikeBarnett wrote:

@NBE

We have accusations from the rebels that chemical strikes were made, and photos show people lying down. Unfortunately, no one checked for dead animals, especially birds, whose corpses could have been sent for analysis, and this omission makes me doubt the question of actual attacks versus rebel infections of some people and some ground to “prove” a chemical attack. Add to that the fact that Assad is winning and does not need nor want a chemical attack to bring in the West while the rebels need the West to intervene. However, the UN team is on the ground, and we may learn more later.

Aug 27, 2013 4:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Slammy wrote:

@NBE

“Were chemical strikes actually made?”

It appears so. The Russians have waffled some, first stating that the rebels launched the attack and then stating they could not confirm an attack took place and just do not know. But I do not see anyone screaming that the attack itself was made up.

“If so, who made them?”

That is the big question which answer seems to depend on which side of the conflict your allegiance is. In my opinion, the Syrian regime has shown itself over the past two years to be untrustworthy and lives in an altered state of reality. Google some news reports over the past two years containing quotes from Syrian authorities to see what I mean. First, there were no protests at all, that was all western propaganda. Then, there were scattered protests but these were no big deal and very small and isolated. Then there were a few armed gangs operating from isolated locations but most of the country was at peace and unaware of any fighting… their imagination goes on and almost always becomes contradicted by facts that can not be ignored.

However, let me pose this question, does it matter who launched the attacks? If we start with the premise that there was an attack, can this be tolerated in of itself? If it was the regime, of course they need be stopped from doing it again. If it were the rebels, then how is the world safe knowing these guys have wmds that can one day possibly be used on any city in the world? If there was an attack, someone needs to go in and get this stuff before more people are harmed by it, regardless of who did it. Just my thought.

Aug 27, 2013 4:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
prolibertate wrote:

SEE WHAT THE BUZZ IS ABOUT: WORLD WAR III: THE SEQUEL! Bigger! Badder! More nuclear weapons! More death and destruction! More heinous war crimes! See the latest/greatest terror weapons inflict death from above – fighters, bombers, drones, missiles, bombs, NBC weapons and more!
CAST: in the role of fascist, racist, false-flag planting nation invading its neighbors for “lebenstraum” – land and resources while persecuting a religious minority: ISRAEL.
In the role of the religious minority: the MUSLIMS. How many millions have died thru acts of war, starvation, lack of medical care and infrastructure, and war crimes in Palestine, Gaza, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East? Who knows?! How many more will die from Desert Storm Syndrome, radiation and depleted uranium – the gruesome gifts that keep on giving?
In the role of the democratically-elected, charismatic psychopath: OBAMA. How much evil can he convince his followers to do while claiming God and Justice are on their side? How much repression will his citizens tolerate? Will they tolerate the indefinite detention and murder of their own citizens with no review, no due process, no trial – a mere whim of their dictator? Will they tolerate the use of chemical weapons against restrained peaceful protestors by the militarized police? Will they tolerate the invasive searches and demands for papers when they travel? Will they tolerate the two-tier justice system – one for the well-connected few and another for the “little people”? Will the tolerate the rampant lawlessness among the government goons?
In the role of the Axis of Evil: NATO. Will they succeed in destroying the world and their economies at the same time? Will their citizens rise up against the madness in time? Will they tolerate endless domestic spying, austerity, and police state crackdowns? Will they follow OBAMA into madness and destruction?
QUESTIONS: will Japan reprise its role in the Axis of Evil? Will it have a more challenging time raping its Asian neighbors this time?
Will Russia reprise its role as savior of the Allies? Who will fill the roles of the Allies? Will the Allies win or lose this time?
PRODUCED & DIRECTED: by the same evil bankster cabals responsible for WWI and WWII. But larger, more powerful, more bloated and brazen than ever from taxpayer bailouts, fraud, and other people’s wealth!
WANT TO KNOW MORE: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/allwarsarebankerwars.php

Aug 27, 2013 4:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

Uncharacteristic of US.

Start sounding like what N Korea did recently.

Aug 27, 2013 5:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
kurdstaat wrote:

Terrorist NATO supplied the chemical weapons that Saddam hussain used to commit genocide against the Aryan Kurdish nation and Iranian Soldiers as in the 1980′s. The terrorist States of US, UK, France, Germany and Holland were the ones responsible for the balance of terror that they imposed on the Middle East as Iran was winning against Iraq. The Iraqi Kurds were also gaining ground during the Iran-Iraq war but the West resorted to genocide against the Aryans.

Terrorist Turks also use have used NATO made chemical weapons against the PKK and Aryan Kurdish civilians in the past 32 years. The State of Turkey is established based upon genocide and crimes against humanity. Terrorist Turks backed and armed by NATO commit terrorism and genocide against the Kurds inside and outside State of Turkey.

Terrorist NATO has allied themselves with the terrorist Turks and the terrorist of the Sunni Arabs against the Aryan Kurds, Iranians and Shiite Arabs. However in the past few decades the power of the Iranians, Kurds and Shiite Arabs is increasing and the proxies of the West are in danger. Iraq is dominated by Kurds and Shiite Arabs after the invasion of Iraq by US. Lebanon is in the hands of Hezbollah who is the enemy of the Western proxy, Israel. Iran is dominated by Shiite Fars and is developing Nukes.

The Western terrorist have their own plan in their head for the Middle East based on their flawed perception of their so called national interests. Their plan consists of:

1-committing any kind of terrorism or genocide against the Kurds and Iranians by helping and arming their enemies and dividing their land.

2-Creating propaganda and labels and censorship against the Kurds and Iranians.

3- To work very closely with the terrorist Turks and any terrorist Arabs who has any kind of animosity with Kurds and Iranians.

NATO has dug its degenerate military soaked in blood of Aryan Kurds deep in trenches that continue until today. Actions of Europeans’, Americans’, Canadians’ and Australians’ give the Aryans a bad name and shake their ancestors,the Aryans, in their graves.

The Sunni Arabs want to dominate Syria since but that’s not going to happen because Israel does not want the Sunni Arabs to be ruling next door. The international and inter-State war in the Middle East has just started and it will finish not according to the plan the terrorist NATO has in its head based on perception of western national interests.

The States of Syria, Iraq and Turkey have no other choice but to disintegrate. No matter how many times NATO will attack Syria or Iraq and try to rhetorically democratize them it will not work. The borders of States have to respond to the needs of the nations of Aryan Kurds, Arabs and even Mongol Turks separately. So far the borders don’t respond to the needs of Aryans and the terrorist NATO does not recognize the Aryan Kurdish nation and their fundamental human rights.

Aug 27, 2013 5:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USARealist wrote:

prolibertate…I normally believe that doctors over-medicate too many patients these days. In your case however, I recommend seeking help and doubling the dosage of whatever they give you.

Aug 27, 2013 5:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Reuters1945 wrote:

@cbj

“What is your POINT? You drone on and on and there is nothing there . . . it’s a void . . . it’s a waste of space.”

My goodness gracious, feeling a bit touchy today, are we?

Is your private psychoanalyst away for his/her end of summer vacation?

You appear to have a lot of unresolved anger issues, (possibly stemming from a problematic childhood), which compel you to continuously criticize the opinions of other commentators in order to perhaps prop up your own overly fragile/delicate, ego.

Perhaps it might help keep your blood pressure under control if you would simply pass over any “comment” that begins with “Reuters1945″ or exceeds 10 lines.

It may come as a surprise to you to learn that you are not required to read every comment that gets posted here.

But then that would give the game away. You clearly have a compulsive need to put down other people in order to perhaps convince yourself that you are superior to other human beings.

Back in the day that condition was commonly referred to as a “Superiority complex”.

I would not be at all surprised if “cbj” stood for “continuously being judgmental”. I imagine others have noticed this about you also- more is the pity.

Aug 27, 2013 5:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Lowell_Thinks wrote:

If Obama attacks Syria, how are you liberal buffoons going to go after Bush now? Your messiah will committ the same “crimes” as Bush, now what? Or does he get a pass for being Trayvon’s daddy?

Aug 27, 2013 5:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Slammy wrote:

@prolibertate

“SEE WHAT THE BUZZ IS ABOUT: WORLD WAR III: THE SEQUEL! B”

Syria is not going to start world war three, the country is not that valuable. It is located in an somewhat important geographical area of the globe but few nations care what actually goes on inside the country as long as that part of the Mediterranean is stable.

However, if you want to get technical, there are arguments that what we call the second world war was actually world war 3, or maybe even ww4. The British and French fought on four continents during the American revolution (North + South America, Europe, Asia and there might have been some skirmishes in northern Africa, if so, 5 continents). Then the Napoleonic wars brought in every major powerhouse in Europe with fighting in Africa and some in Asia minor. Winston Churchill analyzes and compares these two wars in size and complexity against WWI and WWII and makes a strong argument that we numbered our world wars incorrectly. WWI was after all called The Great War until the start of WWII. But the overall size of the theaters between the British and French in the American Revolution were as, or almost as large, as the theaters in WWI. How large a geographical area is necessary and/or how many countries must be involved before a war becomes a world war?

Aug 27, 2013 5:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
drmorocco wrote:

I hope that Israel doesn’t sink too many of our ships on accident.

Aug 27, 2013 5:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
drmorocco wrote:

I hope that Israel doesn’t sink too many of our ships on accident.

Aug 27, 2013 5:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Butch_from_PA wrote:

Capitalistic,
If it was the rebels using nerve gas as alluded to in http://www.livetradingnews.com/un-official-syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-assads-army-6636.htm – wonder is the USA will jump bomb anyone in Syria to pushing the whole country : )

Aug 27, 2013 5:40pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Luna1984 wrote:

@kurdstaat
You sound like an elementary class kid. What is this Aryans, Kurds etc. etc. Do you know that how many of you have been kept ignorant. Your brain has been poisoned for centuries with this idea of Shia, Kurd, Aryan etc. We are now in different world of science and technology so its better for you to forget about your ancestor’s graves and talk something useful.

Aug 27, 2013 5:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
cautious123 wrote:

Are they using Agent Orange?

Aug 27, 2013 6:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Lowell_Thinks asks: “If Obama attacks Syria, how are you liberal buffoons going to go after Bush now?”

Uhh… actual weapons of mass destruction as opposed to made-up ones? For starters. Then there’s the sad reality for Bush-lovers that Obama did not go through the extra step of fabricating some ‘uranium purchase documents’ supposedly from Nigeria. That helps too.

Aug 27, 2013 6:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ToshiroMifune wrote:

Calling all volunteers. Operation Slam Dunk needs you!

http://b-i.forbesimg.com/kenrapoza/files/2013/08/bush-obama.jpg

Aug 27, 2013 6:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ToshiroMifune wrote:

Speaking of moral obscenities:

“UNITED NATIONS, Jul 17 2013 (IPS) – A long-awaited study on congenital birth defects by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Ministry of Health (MOH) in Iraq is expected to be very extensive in nature.

According to WHO, 10,800 households were selected as a sample size for the study, which was scheduled to be released early this year but has not yet been made public.

Many scientists and experts have started questioning the time delay in publishing the study, but there is another aspect that is a cause for concern among some health experts.

The report will not examine the link between the prevalence of birth defects and use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions used during the war and occupation in Iraq, according to WHO. . . . But Susanne Soederberg, a professor and Canada research chair at Queen’s University who is also waiting for the study to be published, did not mince words.

“I strongly believe that the WHO, like most international organisations, is not a neutral body, but is influenced by the geopolitical powers of its members,” she told IPS. “So, yes, there is reason why a group of very smart scientists are not exploring the ‘why’ question in their study.””

http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/07/whos-iraq-birth-defect-study-omits-causat…

Aug 27, 2013 6:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

Is Obama the first Nobel Peace prize winner to bomb another country or not? Just curious.

Aug 27, 2013 6:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

We fire guided missiles every day in training, over the oceans and open deserts. I see no problem with training this week over the Presidential quarters in Syria. Then enough fun, time to move on.

Aug 27, 2013 6:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
VultureTX wrote:

@kurdstaat

okay we get it. You are a Syrian Kurd that forgets history and is resentful of how well the Kurds in Iraq were treated by the US.

Of course you claim of being an Aryan Kurd smacks of NAZI fetishism, but since your are ignorant of actual history, I doubt you understand the reference.

/btw congrats Kurdstaat, you are worse than US media for your misuse of the word “terrorist”.

Aug 27, 2013 6:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Yashmak wrote:

Alkaline State,
Bush got approval from Congress for his military actions. This will mark the second time Obama has committed acts of war against sovereign nations without congressional approval.

Actual WMD’s used by who? There’s a very real question as to if this whole thing was staged by the rebels, because it makes exactly ZERO sense for Assad to do the one thing which would prompt American intervention, when we’ve avoided involving ourselves so far. . .and so soon after Obama laid down that ‘red line’ too.

Fortunately for Obama, he has the media to reinforce his claims that the evidence (so far unpresented) is “incontrovertible”.

Aug 27, 2013 6:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
garthybanks wrote:

Attack means of delivery of chemical weapons and their storage depots. Offer to defend Syria from any invading forces.

Aug 27, 2013 6:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Reuters1945 wrote:

“West could hit Syria in days, envoys tell rebels”

UN Official now believes Syrian Rebels Used Sarin Nerve Gas, Not Assad’s Army
Posted by: Paul Ebeling Posted on: August 27, 2013

Oops and double oops. The POTUS and Mr. John Kerry have a new, major, problem.

“Testimony from victims now strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin Nerve Gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior UN diplomat said Monday.

“Carla del Ponte, a member of the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.

“But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons (CW), according to the BBC, she added that more investigation was needed.

“Damascus is facing growing Western accusations that its forces used such weapons, which US President Obama has described as crossing a Red Line. But Ms. del Ponte’s remarks may serve to shift the focus of international concern.

“Ms. del Ponte, in 1999 was appointed to head the UN was crimes tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda”

Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry, France and Britain, et al, have been so continuously and vociferously adamant that anyone who resorts to chemical weapons needs to be “punished” in the strongest terms possible.

How will they wiggle out of this predicament when they were the ones who were always screaming for a UN Team to investigate in Syria.

In the old days, kids were taught to remember the correct spelling of the word “assume” by memorizing the following sentence:

“Never assume because when you assume you make an “ass” out of “u” and “me”.

See: http://www.livetradingnews.com/un-official-syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-assads-army-6636.htm

Aug 27, 2013 6:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Sonorama wrote:

@Slammy

“I am not really sure who in the US will personally benefit from this [U.S. military involvement in Syria]…
do you know? Who?”

The people who sell Humvees and the people who sell coffins.

Aug 27, 2013 7:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
benburned wrote:

Aim those cruise missiles at Wall ST. and HQ’s of Goldman Sachs might actually do some good for the world in general, with adequate warning of course, rest assured fewer innocents would be casualties.

Aug 27, 2013 7:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
UauS wrote:

“In war, truth is the first casualty” – Aeschylus
But my hope is that we will help to end Syrian massacre and the truth will come out sooner or later… I trust that this one of Obama’s primary goals, who “expressed his vocal opposition, calling it a foolish decision by President Bush”, in regards to invasion of Iraq. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_Barack_Obama_vote_on_invasion_of_Iraq)

Aug 27, 2013 7:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Louieloueye wrote:

Of course the regime did it. U.S. has nothing to gain by going after the rebels.

Aug 27, 2013 7:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Life1 wrote:

@VultureTX: love it when people display their mental limits as overtly as you do…

Carry on!

Aug 27, 2013 7:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
UauS wrote:

@Louieloueye: of course you’re right, you have nothing to gain by supporting the USA.

Aug 27, 2013 7:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Slammy wrote:

@ Overcast451

“Is Obama the first Nobel Peace prize winner to bomb another country or not? Just curious.”

I am not certain of all the winners but Yasser Arafat received one.

@Sonorama wrote:

“The people who sell Humvees and the people who sell coffins.”

This is the best retort you can come up with? What about the cruise missile makers, companies who supply parts for the airplanes and ships, currency traders who are betting on how this effects exchange rates, the premium companies might begin to charge for going through the Suez during a regional conflict… But Coffins and Humvees? Buy the stocks if you really believe it. This is very unlikely to be a ground war and I will be impressed if Syria can shoot down a plane or hit a ship. Our guys are good at disabling and jamming radar and communication and we usually have good intelligence on where assets are, especially in desert and arid conditions. I think our casualties will be low. Time will tell.

Aug 27, 2013 7:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheTruth111 wrote:

Hahaha. See you later syria. Your little Hezbollah Rodents are going to get bombed. Hahahah. See ya later. Your so tough assad. I have news for you. America is Stronger and better than you and your rodents assad. Cant wait :)

Aug 27, 2013 7:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Tiu wrote:

The headline should say “another strike”. Looks like they’ve possibly already done a chemical one…
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08/27/us-contractors-cited-for-syrian-chem-attacks-video/

Aug 27, 2013 7:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

A lively debate. Something we were lacking in the Bush years.

Aug 27, 2013 7:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
RichardLProv wrote:

Well we have a choice, to severely damage Assad’s assets or close our eyes like Russia, China and some other Muslim armies are doing. The West will once again, at the request of the victims and other Muslim countries, will get involved.

Aug 27, 2013 8:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Nuts1 wrote:

rgbviews, The Japanese fought to the death in every WWII theater. They would not surrender. The civilian population was armed by the government and told to fight any invasion to the death. The US agonized over using Atomic weapons but the death toll to end the war justified using atomic weapons. If you were in an invasion force to end the war staring down millions of Japanese more then happy to take your life you would have used atomic weapons in a heartbeat. (and the Japanese engaged the US by bombing Pearl Harbor….)

Aug 27, 2013 8:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
masrya wrote:

It is sad that we can not do anything other than talk while we watch the US and it’s allies support terrorists who kill civilians and now apparently it is not happening fast enough for them so the US now plans to expedite the process by killing more of the civilians themselves.

Aug 27, 2013 8:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
CarolTrongeau wrote:

Hey everybody, I’ve got a great idea. Let’s get involved backing one side of a multi-front religious war across the Mideast and Africa.

What can possibly go wrong? This will be a quick cakewalk. Everyone will applaud us as the good guys.

Another great idea – a limited humanitarian mission to feed hungry children in Somalia. Nothing big – just a few Rangers at the airport – no tanks or armor! – to hand out food in Mogadishu.

What can possibly go wrong?

Aug 27, 2013 8:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
punande wrote:

This attack is a bad idea , the rebels are desperate and so are some it seems in Washington DC IE insane McCain . Its very probable these rebels did this as they are a fractured desperate group that have been loosing the hearts and minds of the Syrian people as well as the war . The fighting among themselves has been well documented I dont understand why this is not brought up on MSM ? The majority of americans are against this war .

Aug 27, 2013 9:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Louieloueye wrote:

@UauS
Wiki answers? Really?
Were anyone can answer a question or change part of the answer?

Aug 27, 2013 9:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
barenski wrote:

maybe they need new munitions so they want to send them aging missiles places thus saving on costly disassembly

Aug 27, 2013 10:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
VultureTX wrote:

@life1
Well since you are unable to distinguish between philistine and palestine, I count myself blessed that you are not an ally.

/please go forth and continue to out yourself , so that more may ignore your stated positions,

Aug 27, 2013 10:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BraveNewWrld wrote:

I wonder, what is Obama-Hollande-Cameron’s “plan B” in case Russian navy ships, of which a fair amount is now near Syria, would shoot down some of cruise missiles in Syrian or neutral air space? Just to test the anti-missile capabilities of their air defenses and spare some Syrian lives? Boycott winter Olympics? Cry like babies? Or engage Russians and let us taste what their remaining ss18-satans are capable of? What for? Dumb idiots…

Aug 27, 2013 11:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
barenski wrote:

idk if nato has more boats which they probably do, but nato boats are definitely more experienced

Aug 27, 2013 12:10am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Margaretville wrote:

No more war. War hawks go home. America needs some healing time after years of war, decade after decade.

Aug 28, 2013 10:14am EDT  --  Report as abuse
cbj wrote:

@Reuters1945

Gee, even your weak attempt at insult is a minor dissertation.

My point is that you substitute quantity for quality and your posts assume that the reader knows nothing so you go into long winded explanations of minutia. It’s a smoke screen, a way of intellectual posing.

In short, “brevity is the soul of wit”.

Aug 28, 2013 10:45am EDT  --  Report as abuse
cbj wrote:

@Reuters1945,
“UN Official now believes Syrian Rebels Used Sarin Nerve Gas, Not Assad’s Army
Posted by: Paul Ebeling Posted on: August 27, 2013″

So, now it becomes clear. You get your news from religious blog sites.
Sigh, in this battle of wits I am fighting the unarmed.

Aug 28, 2013 11:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Life1 wrote:

@VultureTX: No you’re right… The ancient greeks had a very big problem with people misunderstanding their english…

Your little rant against an ‘Aryan’ Kurd says more about you then I can ever dream of putting into words. What’s next? Find some Hiroshima survivors to throw stones at??

Aug 28, 2013 5:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.