world

Syria warns U.S. not to intervene militarily

75 Comments
By BASSEM MROUE and ALBERT AJI

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

75 Comments
Login to comment

Is War an addiction for the US?

What is this?

"Military Aggression Disorder?"

-15 ( +10 / -24 )

U.S. defense officials told The Associated Press that the Navy had sent a fourth warship armed with ballistic missiles into the eastern Mediterranean Sea but without immediate orders for any missile launch into Syria.

“Sending warships will not solve the problems but will worsen the situation,”

Precisely. What good will flattening entire neighborhoods with ballistic missiles do for the Syrian people? None. It'll do lots of good for the U.S. arms industry, each one of those missiles runs at least $100 000, but no good for the locals.

One barrel had “made in Saudi Arabia” stamped on it.

... and what was on the rest? "Made in the U.S.A."? It doesn't mean jack, it just means that they bought materials from the cheapest local suppliers. Occam's razor is a wonderful thing.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

Big profits in death.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

an international aid group said it has tallied 355 deaths from a purported chemical weapons attack

vs.

Is War an addiction for the US?

As bad as it sounds, the US is better off letting hundreds or thousands of innocents die with chemical weapons than having a single innocent killed by an American weapon. The world will yawn if a few thousand Syrians are killed by other Arabs. If one of the dies in a drone strike, the world will say the US is causing of all of the killings in the Middle East and the world media will explode with pictures of that one person on their front covers.

8 ( +14 / -6 )

France has suggested that force could be used against Syria if Assad’s regime was proven to have used chemical arms.

Great! Let the French use its force in Syria whereever it deems necessary. The US should not get militarily involved in Syria's multi-sided civil war. If necessary, the French could form a coalition with Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Non-involvement by the US will demonstrate we've learned something since Iraq and Afghanistan.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

The Americans want yet another war. The lust for blood is upon them. How many will they kill in the name of "freedom"? Another made up reason for war. The cycle repeats itself over and over again.

-15 ( +7 / -22 )

"Is War an addiction for the US?"

What, this war is America's fault, too?

If America doesn't help when a country's people are being massacred, everyone says, What no oil for you to have? How could the US stand by and do nothing?

If America does help, is war an addiction for the US? Big profits in death?

The US is better off just being isolationists again. Let everyone sort their own issues out.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

@yuriotani, this American here does not want another war involving our forces in the Middle East. I've had friends and family who fought over there and I'm glad they are now home safe and thankful for their service. We need to get out of the Middle East and I'm glad Syria is telling our government not to intervene.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Ha! There's more outrage on this article against the US for POSSIBLY getting involved than against Assad who actually already killed hundreds by a chemical weapon and "the lust for blood" seems to be more on him.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Anyone who proposes any military intervention should be first in line to don the footsoldier uniform and lead from the first line. None of the "in the rear with the gear " or from the safety of a District of Con-men office.

Interventionism is for fools.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex

Dwight D Eisenhower, president's farewell speech to the (US) nation, January 17, 1961 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Uhm, NO. Time the let the trouble spots in the ME like this sort themselves out. Just sit back and protest at the UN and complain, but don't even think of sending any more "assistance" for this situation. I'd rather Syria be isolated by its own actions instead of dragging the US around the mud with it trying to "help" a bunch of fanatical radicals on either side.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Actually for once I think the UN should intervene militarily (not just the US) to rid the Syrians of the current regime. This is what freedom is all about, and is a process that several nations in the region have been going through recently.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

We have already traced the stuff to Assad forces and assad has loaded chemical warfare bombs onto jets. I do propose military action and I have myself been in to number of hostile countries during my service. However, I feel we should take out both sides during the upcoming Syria war.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@YuriOtani You said: "The Americans want yet another war."

Well for your information, there already is a war going on over there and has been for a long time, the direct result of a dictator refusing to step down.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I'm not American, but I doubt many folk there could stomach even one of their boys killed in Syria - where likely neither side would be thankful for intervention, and both sides would turn on the Americans like dogs. The fact is, every nation in the middle-east and north-Africa - Israel included - are beyond help from the civilized world. Let them be.

6 ( +6 / -1 )

What is the nearest American target for Syria to hit? Perhaps, America is tired of continuously tube-feeding Israel. Let it be the focus in the event of an American, British or French military intervention in Syria. These global thugs sleep together. And, make it thousands of rockets with spot-on accuracy instead of lobbing a few at a time. Now is the time for lesson 101 in full frontal and strategic retaliation and this needn't be just in the Middle East..

0 ( +1 / -1 )

harvey pekar,

What, this war is America's fault, too?

The US is already involved in this conflict and has been for some time:

President Barack Obama's decision to authorize lethal aid to Syrian rebels marks a deepening of U.S. involvement in the two-year civil war.

The CIA and special operations trainers are already running some weapons training programs for the rebels and are expected to take charge of teaching the opposition how to use the weapons the U.S. has agreed to supply, another U.S. official said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/obama-approves-military-aid-syrian-rebels-article-1.1372540#ixzz2cwWoeV8K

The US has made a mess out of the Middle East, killed, destroyed cities and made tons of enemies and the only "good" thing to come out of it is huge profits for companies that manufacture and sell arms.

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

BertieWoosterAug. 25, 2013 - 07:46AM JST

Is War an addiction for the US?

What is this?

"Military Aggression Disorder?"

Addiction? Absurd.

Bertie, you go ahead to give up your computer and you and British can own it anytime. Let us know if the war is addictive. You know you have to like it before things get addictive.

The US has made a mess out of the Middle East, killed, destroyed cities and made tons of enemies and the only "good" thing to come out of it is huge profits for companies that manufacture and sell arms.

Oh do we, Bertie? You should go ahead and blame Tony Blair and British media first how they started this whole mess. Let me tell you that you need to go back to a history of British Imperialism in the middle east. British is a self righteous nation. Hope you get it before you open up your big mouth.

4 ( +8 / -5 )

Bertie and Yuri so while your nations sit comfortably back and do nothing to stop violence against innocents I hope that you can sleep well at night knowing that you perpetuated the pacifist non involvement ideals. I would rather get involved and save a life then look back later and think maybe we should have done something about it when we had a chance and now there have been innocents massacred. Your way of thinking by others allowed things like World War II to happen. America is far from perfect but at least we aren't afraid to get involved when there is a just cause and this is one of those times.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

@ Yuri - I suggest you volunteer your time to help the innocent victims of the chemical attacks(especially the children) before you make comments about the US "lust for blood". If it was your neighborhood that got gassed, you'd be screaming for the US to do something about it.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

It's not up to the US to intervene - Barak Obama is the President of the United States, not the President of the World.

The useless, ineffectual, hand wringing United Nations are the ones who should be doing it together - it's not the job of the US to police the world - especially in the Middle East.

The UN has just watched this transpire just like it has done for so many other similar situations. Shame.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

@BertieWooster: The fact is, the Syrians were already heavily involved with killing each other well before President Obama made any decision to get involved in supplying weapons. You can't blame the USA for everything that goes wrong in the world.

4 ( +5 / -2 )

@ Tamarama - You made some good points about Obama and the UN. But how long should we wait if nobody else is doing anything?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

If the US want to intervene militarily, it's ok but he must confirm it can be completed well. nobody want to see another Iraq which the US promised to make it a better place, however we only see the US troops ran away, ran out of US taxpayers' money at the same time, and Iraq became worst place on earth and millions of Irap people are still homeless and jobless and worrying about bombing everyday. What a good job!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Obama and his warmongering minions would be wise to heed the words of a Founder:

" America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. "

John Quincy Adams

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Bertie and Yuri,

Last time I confirmed, there are over a million children (whole children of 2 states: Massachusetts and California combined) who became orphans in Syria. Something has to happen pretty soon to stop this senseless killing.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Well then global, march yourself down to the nearest "Uncle Sam Wants You" recruiting station and sign up.

" However, the American public shows no willingness to get involved in another costly conflict in the Middle East, a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll suggests.

Only 9 percent of the surveyed believe President Barack Obama should take action on Syria, while some 60 percent of Americans said the United States should not intervene in Syria's bloody civil war.

According to the poll taken on August 19-23, 25 percent of Americans would back intervention if it is proven that the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against civilians, while almost double that number 46 percent would still oppose such a move."

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Jean: " America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. " - John Quincy Adams

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

We can trade quotes all day if you'd like.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Why all this debate about American military action in Syria? Have they specifically stated they will do so? No. In fact, Obama, being the chump he is, is saying that any military action will be in accordance to UN mandate and international law. And why is he saying this? Because he knows full well that that Putin will veto any such mandate in the UNSC. When such a mandate does get vetoed, Obama can say, "We tried, but Russia vetoed it. It's out my hands." Thus absolving him any further responsibility. Obama lets Putin walk all over him on a regular basis. And Putin knows it, so he will continue to do it. Obama is a weakingly. There is no need for any further debate. America will do nothing. As, in my opinion, they should.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

My problem is (and I am sure it is a shared problem) is that I do not know whether to support the rebels or Assad. I know better than to simply trust the press, but still, I have received mix reports about the two groups.

All I know for sure is that I want the killing to stop. Barring that, I don't want it to get worse.

I see direct and unilateral U.S. intervention as something that would make it worse. What little clout the U.S. had for peacekeeping and universally beneficial regime change has been squandered on Iraq and Afghanistan. But I will take Bertie Wooster's side in this because you know American war profiteers are chomping at the bit yet again.

If the U.S. should be doing anything, its petitioning the U.N. to do something and offering U.S. troops to take part in a real U.N. led peacekeeping mission, and any U.S. soldier not willing to be subject to the ICJ need not be sent.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

But I will take Bertie Wooster's side in this because you know American war profiteers are chomping at the bit yet again.

The American defense industry aren't the only ones that will profit. And you know it. Focusing solely on America's response is a straw man argument. There are several actors involved here.

As far as the UN: They have done nothing and they will continue to do nothing. Why? Because Russia won't allow it. And why won't Russia allow it? Because they are PROFITING from the conflict.

So, it's ok for Russia to continue to incite violence and profit, then veto any possibility of UN action to stop it? Yet somehow is the US wants to intervene without a UN resolution, its morally wrong because the American defense industry wants to profit? Where is all the outrage directed towards Russia, China, and Iran? They are the primary reason this has gone on so long.

This is getting quite ridiculous.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

CalvinMontblanc My problem is (and I am sure it is a shared problem) is that I do not know whether to support the rebels or Assad. If the U.S. should be doing anything, its petitioning the U.N

Thank you so much for your post,

It is TWO sides in this conflict : Assad and his civil&secular&authoritorian Syrian goverment (like Saddam&Gaddafi RIP...)

AND - Islamists&Jihadists International

So you chose

But it is no democratic party there....

1 ( +4 / -3 )

treaties are double-edged swords, they help protect people but can bring alot of people into a fight that they would otherwise have no intrest in being in.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Debkafile reports that the US military has completed an operations center in Jordan and expects the orders to impose a partial "no fly zone" in Syria from Washington within 2 weeks.

So it looks like Obama is really going to step into this.

The pure blithering stupidity of this is unbelievable. Obama is going to step into an inter-islamic Sunni-vs-Shia conflict, playing airforce for the Sunni radicals (aka the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Quaeda). While at the same, he is blowing up Al Quaeda operatives by remote controlled drones.

If you want a definition of insanity, look no further.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@bertie

Is War an addiction for the US?

What is this?

"Military Aggression Disorder?"

The US is already involved in this conflict and has been for some time:

The US has made a mess out of the Middle East, killed, destroyed cities and made tons of enemies and the only "good" thing to come out of it is huge profits for companies that manufacture and sell arms.

You mean, the sectarian Sunni and Shiite violence (that we got caught up in) and that shortly followed after we disposed of Saddam and I guess, leaving his sons who were much worse in power was ok? Riiiiiight. So the only thing for us to do was to sell arms? What about the money we gave to help the Iraqis, schools we built, installed clean safe water so that the people had enough to drink and cook their foods? You just don't want to say ANYTHING positive of the accomplishments of the US and allied forces, lets just focus on ONLY the negativity.

You just can't say anything positive about the US, NOT once can you? it's like a "complain disorder"

@yuri

The Americans want yet another war. The lust for blood is upon them. How many will they kill in the name of "freedom"? Another made up reason for war. The cycle repeats itself over and over again.

Didn't you know, ALL Americans think about is Big Mac, fries, coke and War. Everyday we think about as to who we can invade next, it's in our blood, we crave it.

That's what you want to hear?

@jean

Anyone who proposes any military intervention should be first in line to don the footsoldier uniform and lead from the first >line. None of the "in the rear with the gear " or from the safety of a District of Con-men office. Interventionism is for fools.

Obama and his warmongering minions would be wise to heed the words of a Founder:

Obama?? A war monger?? You are joking right?

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom."

-Patrick Henry

Sounds about right for the terrorists.

You want to enlist?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Jean, the sovereign citizen ideology is pretty far out to most of us. More like domestic terrorists.

Other than that, I agree that involvement here should be avoided. If Laurent Fabius wants to wage war let him send his sons, and the children of Hollande. Socialist war mongers.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Superlib, except JQA's quote is specifically about foreign military intervention.

base, " Obama?? A war monger?? You are joking right? "Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom." -Patrick Henry"

Obama is not exactly taking a position, but the Pentagon is. Where is the anti-war democrat voice? And who, pray tell, was Patrick Henry referring? Surely not anyone in Syria.

Enlist? Go ahead without me. I oppose wars. Let McCain and Hagel carry their own pack and rifle if they want to play soldier.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Let McCain and Hagel carry their own pack and rifle if they want to play soldier.

I'm not fan of either, but both of them have served in the military and both served in combat. McCain was a POW in Vietnam. I'm sure they both know full well the horrors of war. They lived it. You haven't.

You're still not addressing Russia's role in all this. Why are you blaming the US? The haven't fired a single shot in Syria.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

That is a very interesting point you bring up about the whole UK pitting the various ethnic tribes together and in particular the Sunni and Shiite

This is not secret. Especially in Iraq. The divide and conquer strategy was a calculated strategic move on the part of the Brits. They did the same thing in India. Age old strategy, really. Nothing new or groundbreaking.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

My problem is (and I am sure it is a shared problem) is that I do not know whether to support the rebels or Assad. I know better than to simply trust the press, but still, I have received mix reports about the two groups.

Assad might not be an angel, but I will never be on the side of the rebels. They are a mainly-foreign mercenary army. Their main supporters are Saudi Arabia and Qatar, not exactly shining examples of democracy.

Before this mess, Syria was a relatively prosperous and peaceful country. The US has been trying for years to carry out a regime change in Syria.

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw>

As I said, Assad is no angel, but when you have the US trying to carry out regime change, I think a leader needs to be a little strict. And I am not referring to the alleged brutal crackdown on the initial protests, I think there were a series of false flags there. Just like it does not make sense for Assad to invite UN chemical weapons inspectors and immediately start firing chemical weapons, it also did not make sense at the start of the conflict for Assad to order snipers to kill innocent civilians just hours before a UNSC meeting.

-15 ( +2 / -17 )

@jean

Obama is not exactly taking a position, but the Pentagon is. Where is the anti-war democrat voice?

Racking up the unemployment benefits.

And who, pray tell, was Patrick Henry referring? Surely not anyone in Syria.

Never know, could've been.

Enlist? Go ahead without me.

How do you know I didn't?

I oppose wars. Let McCain and Hagel carry their own pack and rifle if they want to play soldier.

I oppose wars as well, but sometimes, you need to fight a war to keep the peace, sad to say, but true. McCain and Hagel already served, both decorated men. Also, not a big fan of either, but both have extensive military credentials and especially McCain being a POW knows the ugly side of war as well. I respect both of them.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

" I'm not fan of either, but both of them have served in the military and both served in combat. McCain was a POW in Vietnam. I'm sure they both know full well the horrors of war. They lived it. You haven't."

Beware of assumptions, hoopaloopa, you know the saying. As someone who WAS in Nam, you would think he'd have learned like many others of us have(like Ron Kovic).

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

If you were in Nam, then you would know that both McCain and Hagel were there as well, now wouldn't you? Makes me curious why you would make such a comment directed towards your fellow brothers in arms. And I could care less what a pity hungry blowhard like Ron Kovic has to say. Just my opinion.

As a combat veteran, I would never make such a claim towards those who served along with me.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Hoopaloopa,

Then you learned nothing from your experience in Nam.

" Makes me curious why you would make such a comment directed towards your fellow brothers in arms. And I could care less what a pity hungry blowhard like Ron Kovic has to say. Just my opinion. As a combat veteran, I would never make such a claim towards those who served along with me."

There are countless peace activists who became such BECAUSE of their experiences in the various conflicts and likewise oppose involvement in Syria or anywhere else. Peace, brother.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

I wasn't in Nam, bro. 4 tours between Iraq and Afghanistan.

And I agree with you about veterans becoming activists.

I just don't agree with your comments about McCain and Hagel. Both served with distinction and honor. Despite their politics, I have mad respect for each.

The US hasn't done anything in Syria, which is my whole point and we probably won't. Further, I never said we should. I could care less that a bunch of American-hating A-rabs want to destroy and kill each other. Have at it.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

There are countless peace activists who became such BECAUSE of their experiences in the various conflicts and likewise oppose involvement in Syria or anywhere else. Peace, brother.

So if you served in Nam and you are NOT a peace activist, that makes you a bad person??

So now you want to do drive-bys?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

"Nobody should cry over Arabs deaths."

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Let the Muslims fight each other and leave them alone, that way they will not be trying to terrorize the rest of the world. Do not get involved in a family feud and this is a family feud.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@kent

I totally agree.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"Its a shame that people of today cannot figure out why so many anti-war activists had it in for soldiers and not just the government."

WTF? That's like blaming the reckless family that steamed into your car whilst you were high on meth and drunk at the wheel....

I've been mostly pro-Obama but I really hope he stays out this one. Let the Russian scum be responsible for this conflict, let them be seen like rats in the limelight for the war mongers that they are, let them be responsible for the atrocities.

Perhaps there was a time when international intervention may have been wise, but thanks to the Russians and the Chinese and to lessons learnt in Iraq and Afghanistan, who the hell wants to dangle their wedding tackle over this time bomb?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

mjh875k my guy got hurt in Bush's war during the surge. He is 100 percent disabled and unable to work. I bring this up because so many more American families will get bad news. As in Libya do not see this as a good thing. The outcome of any American intervention will be no better than if they do nothing. It will not make the USA any safer in fact it will make it more dangerous.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

What US can Russia also can.But the Communists won't interfere into the internal affars of a Muslim country.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The US should do whatever the Pentagon officials say.

There. Is that better?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The US should do whatever the Pentagon officials say.

The military? Yes.They have no choice.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

WTF? That's like blaming the reckless family that steamed into your car whilst you were high on meth and drunk at the wheel....

No. Its like blaming every single adult person in a crime family for the crimes of the family and not just its head, which I believe is pretty standard logic even if you cannot prove Guido knew the occupants of his car just robbed a bank. Guido knew enough.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

"The Syrian government accused rebels of using chemical weapons Saturday and warned the United States not to launch any military action against Damascus over an alleged chemical attack last week, saying such a move would set the Middle East ablaze."

Much of the Middle East has been ablaze for several centuries now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lol the US hasn't even done anything, but, let's focus on the US, not the individuals using Chemical weapons all over their country. They're the good guys...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Institute a no fly zone and post drones over all known chemical weapon's facilities in order to prevent any further use. If anybody on either side attempts to reclaim the weapons, take them out. Never-mind who wins or loses in this messed up conflict, the Syrian government has shown that it either A) Has used chemical weapons or B) Lacks the resources and infrastructure needed to keep careful watch over their existing stockpiles and have allowed them to be used by terrorists. As such the US government has no interest in allowing the Syrian government to continue operating these chemical sites.

Secure the weapon sites and remove the air from play. Then let the cards fall. Without air or chemical weapons as a last line of defense Assad doesn't have much going for him and will likely fold soon after his aircraft start dropping out of the skies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" Lol the US hasn't even done anything, but, let's focus on the US, not the individuals using Chemical weapons all over their country…"

You should know that CIA has been involved(with rebel forces) for quite some time.

As for who used chemweap, Qui Bono? Not Assad.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The Question,

"Institute a no fly zone and post drones over all known chemical weapon's facilities in order to prevent any further use."

Kind of a shame you weren't whispering in GW's ear in '02 instead of the other maniacs...

If intervention is inevitable, then may it be as you say, rather than boots on the ground.

Also, if the UN is to remain in existence, it's high time every respectable country had an even vote rather than the current monopoly. It might even have averted this mess, who knows?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

JeanValJeanAug. 25, 2013 - 02:57PM JST

Well then global, march yourself down to the nearest "Uncle Sam Wants You" recruiting station and sign up.

JeanValJean, Done my share already unlike others who are a self righteous on the laptop. I often find their heads, mouths and asses are too big in the combat. They cannot fight. I am staying away from these as it is a waste of my time. Bhahaha.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

What truly needs to be done is every country involved needs to pull back from ME/north African countries involvement completely. Don't allow any refugees/asylum seekers outside of those areas. Many innocent people will suffer and die, but somehow some way a large enough amount of people will get sick of their situation and realize they need to rise up themselves and fight back against all the stupidity. Get enough of the right people angry and a proper rebellion can happen.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Globalwatcher

Being in the military does not mean you are a good person or even mean you ave benefited society as much as a police officer or teacher. I am a patriot but many in the military now are punks just like the leaders who wnt them to fight arabs agsin.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

US will not send boots to Syria and will not act alone, instead it will be UN actions against Syria. It will be more than likely surgical airstrikes aiming chemical storages around Damascus.

HardmentoughblokesAug. 26, 2013 - 03:08AM JST

Globalwatcher

Being in the military does not mean you are a good person or even mean you ave benefited society as much as a police officer or teacher

I disagree with you with respect. Here is a reason why:

"It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly...who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

As for who used chemweap, Qui Bono? Not Assad.

How do you know who used chemical weapons so definitively? By all media accounts from within Syria it is the Assad regime that has used chemical weapons. Where do you come up with this stuff? And what difference does it make who used them? Regardless of the perpetrator, its a vile and disgusting thing. Why are you so hell bent on defending the Assad regime? A regime well known for decades of violence and oppression. Putin got in your pocket too?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@global,

" Done my share already unlike others who are a self righteous on the laptop..."

There are those of us once conscripted(or others who volunteered) by the political class to go to battle who having seen the horrors of war now vehemently oppose the deceitfulness of government sending young people to pointless deaths in foreign lands such as Syria.

I don't oppose America, but rather the government tools who waste the blood and lives of Americans by sending them to fight the politicians' wars.

America should stay out of Syria, and learn from the failings of the previous interventions.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

U.S. involvement in Syria might have helped save lives if not for destroyed cred in Iraq and Afghanistan and the people who decided to pitch in and destroy America's cred. All we can do now is piggyback on the cred of the U.N., and frankly that is embarrassing. So thank you so much for "doing your part".

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

CalvinMontblancAug. 26, 2013 - 07:08AM JST

JeanValJeanAug. 26, 2013 - 05:51AM JST

My problem is (and I am sure it is a shared problem) is that I do not know whether to support the rebels or Assad

I believe a majority of American public is with you and I am sharing the same view as yours.

I would like to emphasize that Obama is not taking any sides. I agree with his decision as the rebels may be connected to Al Qaeda terrorist groups. Today UN chemical weapon inspection team has been accepted by Assad, and they are now moving into Damascus. We just have to wait and see what they will find. More and more children are becoming orphans (estimated above a million children) in Syria as I posted above. Something has to happen to stop this nonsense. I believe we should not get ourselves involved unless we know how to get out. We do not take prisoners.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Hoola hoop,

If you believe the media, not that they would ever misrepresent facts. At this point, it's unclear whether which or both have used chemweaps. But it seems more likely to me for it to have been the rebels or outside force as agent provacateur. That's my opinion. I don't care about either Assad or Putin.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

JeanValJeanAug. 26, 2013 - 09:14AM JST

There is a proof now. Assad has initiated the chemical weapon use. It is a bottomless pit trying to convince a suspicious mistress.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

It's unclear, yet you state your opinion as fact. Contradict much?

I put more faith in a biased media than anything that comes from Assad or Putin. That much is certain.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The Arab league should sort it out, not the USA or France or Britain.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

global, what proof? If there is proof, I'd like to see it. At this point, there isn't, making it resemble the "intelligence " of Iraq's WMDs.

hoolahoop, the biased media is nothing to trust. I don't take Assad or Putin at their word, either.

Take nothing on faith.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Kind of a shame you weren't whispering in GW's ear in '02 instead of the other maniacs...

It really is rather unfortunate that more of the political big-wigs that frequent this site don't take more of my advice to heart.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites