world

U.S., allies preparing for strike on Syria

71 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2013.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

71 Comments
Login to comment

Isn't this something the UN should be doing?

Why does the U.S.A. have to do it?

0 ( +9 / -9 )

Who's going to pay for this?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

The Assad regime has been killing it's people for well over two years with conventional weapons, and it's killed a LOT of people.

Why now, when they seem to have used chemical weapons, have the goal posts changed for the likes of the US and the UK? Because, effectively they are saying:

"It's OK to kill people with those weapons, but it's not OK to kill people with THOSE weapons."

Strange world.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Less than 1 American in 10 support this action.

2 ( +11 / -9 )

White House spokesman Jay Carney said "These are great days we're living, bros. We are jolly green giants, walking the Earth with guns"

5 ( +7 / -2 )

It's called double-deal the other guy out before he double-deals you out. The lives that will be lost, watching those Syrian kids being pawns in this game of lie and blame breaks your heart.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

In Britain, Cameron told reporters: “This is not about getting involved in a Middle Eastern war or changing our stance in Syria or going further into that conflict. It’s about the legality and morality of America’s extrajudicial execution drones. Their use is wrong and the world shouldn’t stand idly by. Oh...wait...wrong speech.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Because super lib UN Ambassador Samantha Power was on a personal trip in Ireland when she had to bug out on this week's emergency Security Council meeting on the use of chemical weapons in Syria ? As good a reason as any. Why else become the personal Air Force for Al Qaeda and leave another country in a state of further chaos and degeneracy ? Why are we supplying terrorists with weapons and risking international escalation in any of these countries to fuel sectarian conflicts in the name of making the rebels a stronger 'negotiating' partner ? When your "enemy" is defeating himself stand aside at let him finish his work.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

BertieWoosterAUG. 28, 2013 - 07:27AM JST Isn't this something the UN should be doing?

Why does the U.S.A. have to do it?

Russia, Syria's ally, has veto power to block any UN mandate. China, also with veto power, normally opposes such interventions, on the grounds that they set a precedent and violate national sovereignty.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Proof or no proof, the US/UK are bound and determined to stage an attack reminiscent of the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. Disgusting. Stoking flames of a large, hot war.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

@Tamarama

I presume its because they feel like they need a justification. I guess death by conventional munitions just isn't shocking enough for most.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

" "The use of force, especially in circumstances where ethnic and religious factors dominate is unlikely to produce predictable outcomes," Gen. Martin Dempsey told Congress in April, adding that "unintended consequences are the rule with military interventions of this sort."

In the same Senate hearing, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said “military intervention at this point could hinder humanitarian relief operations. It could embroil the United States in a significant, lengthy, and uncertain military commitment."

"American involvement," wrote former Carter national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in May, "would simply mobilize the most extreme elements of [the rebels] against the U.S. and pose the danger that the conflict would spill over into the neighborhood and set Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon on fire."

Intervention, Brzezinski added, "would simply make the situation worse. None of the proposals would result in an outcome strategically beneficial for the U.S. On the contrary, they would produce a more complex, undefined slide into the worst-case scenario.""

http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/john-glaser-intelligence-foreign-policy-world/2013/aug/22/chemical-weapons-use-syria-irrelevant/

5 ( +7 / -2 )

@ Jean

I understand your feelings, but do we just sit back and let Assad gas babies?

It's a dilemma.....

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Knock out Syria and they feel that Iran is ready to be taken. It's all a grab for resources and big money for scum like Halliburton.

Just like Iraq and Libya the usual culprits will make tons of lovely money will most will say, "yeah kill the bad guys", and they have zero understanding of any of it.

The same type that on social media sites were laughing and giggling will demented Ghadaffi was murdered bythe "liberators" all filmed on phone for their fun. Would you want war if it was your loved ones ready to be maimed and killed.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

I understand your feelings, but do we just sit back and let Assad gas babies?

Or throw babies out of hospital cribs like Saddam's army did in Kuwait? Oh..wait.. That was all a CIA lie. Damn it!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Jean,

re: Your 09:01AM JST post, I have to agree with your sentiments there. I don't see any upside to outside involvement in Syria.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Open another Pandora's box?

713 civilians have died in Iraq this month alone, more than ten years after Dubya's "Mission Accomplished" pantomime.

The only winners will be the military-industrial complex.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

BertieWooster: Why does the U.S.A. have to do it?

Because other countries don't have the same capabilities. As often as we're criticized for the size of our military budget, our allies sure think it comes in handy when something needs to be done. For example, Europe's war for oil in Libya.

Tamarama: "It's OK to kill people with those weapons, but it's not OK to kill people with THOSE weapons."

Because using them will cause a proliferation of them, and that's when the real problems start. Also, you can be a lot more precise with a missile than a chemical. Once it's released, it can't be stopped or contained. The problem with doing nothing in Syria is that it may open the doors for chemicals to be used in other conflicts.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Liberalism 101: The only way to "help" the people of Syria is to fund the foreign terrorists and run air cover for their act of terror. Once the Muslim BrotherHood is in control we can open the torture camps and start the raping and plundering (like in Libya). The future oil fields must be protected at all costs however.

Ahmad Jarba, president of the rebel Syrian National Coalition, met envoys from 11 countries at an Istanbul hotel, including the U.S. ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford. The rebel leaders proposed targets for cruise missiles and bombing.

-Seems like a great place to have the 2020 Olympics.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

luca, that's still on the unproven assumption that Assad's forces perpetrated the chemical attack. It should first be independently proven who was actually responsible for the chemical attack before starting aggression.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

@Jean

Very true. And even then, will an intervention actually improve the situation, or create another Iraq?

Christ, what a planet....

2 ( +4 / -2 )

SuperLib

Because using them will cause a proliferation of them, and that's when the real problems start. Also, you can be a lot more precise with a missile than a chemical. Once it's released, it can't be stopped or contained. The problem with doing nothing in Syria is that it may open the doors for chemicals to be used in other conflicts.

You miss the point. Dropping a bomb on a residential district (or a missile) is hardly 'precise'. The Assad regime have been doing this for a long time, and lot's of people have been killed in the process. And no-one has done anything. Dropping a chemical weapon also kills lots of people. Not necessarily more, but in another way. The result is the same - people die and are scarred/maimed for life.

It seems like an arbitrary distinction to me, when the results are essentially the same.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I have mixed feelings about this, on one hand if the strikes take out chemical weapons and help save some innocent lives regardless of whose then I am all for it. That being said the administration should prove to the world why such strikes are necessary etc. Weapons inspectors are there now but honestly if the regime or revolutionaries are using these weapons then everyday that goes by that they are not dealt with is another day they could be used to kill. From the average Syrians perspective that is a day late. These folk are trying to fight for their freedom sadly in this day and age they are receiving help from people that have shall we say questionable motives be they the motives of the USA or of radical fundamentalist terrorist groups. Its all a big mess and there is no good answer as it is not black and white but several shades of grey. Which side is the lesser of two evils? Maybe neither. I just feel for those caught in between and how many that have died senselessly.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

" And even then, will an intervention actually improve the situation, or create another Iraq? Christ, what a planet...."

Exactly. We all know how well things have ended up in the lands of previous interventions, including Iran's in 1953 coup.

"Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose."

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Tamarama: "It's OK to kill people with those weapons, but it's not OK to kill people with THOSE weapons."

Because using them will cause a proliferation of them, and that's when the real problems start. Also, you can be a lot more precise with a missile than a chemical. Once it's released, it can't be stopped or contained. The problem with doing nothing in Syria is that it may open the doors for chemicals to be used in other conflicts.

And also this is a very important issue for US security. If the chemical weapons are not destroyed, the same weapons to wrong hands may attack Americans like the day of 9/11. President Obama does not want to own this war. He will make it very clear that US will not be involved in the civil war. He will also discourage Syrians to keep their hope too high for US peace keeping to protect them. WE WILL NOT STAY IN SYRIA. OUR OBJECTIVE IS TO REMOVE THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS BEFORE THEY GO TO WRONG HANDS.

Susan Rice

Only regime has capacity to launch CW with rockets.

8:47 PM - 26 Aug 2013

Samantha Power

Haunting images of entire families dead in their beds. Verdict is clear: Assad has used CWs against civilians in violation of int'l norm.

9:15 PM - 26 Aug 2013

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

globalwatcher

If the chemical weapons are not destroyed, the same weapons to wrong hands may attack Americans like the day of 9/11.

Ah, this is even worse then. You are saying that the action of the US has nothing to do with their concern for Syrians at all, and is only a purely self interested measure? Wow.

I guess that is consistent with why they didn't care until now, though.

What a sad world.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

This is a unilateral act of violence and aggression to change the government of Syria towards one that is willing to act as muppets for the American Regime. Can the American's ensure that no civilian will be killed? If there is just one civilian killed is that not equivalent to acts of violence that the Syrian government is employing? Can't solve violence with violence.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

This is Iraq all over again. Iraq was destroyed based on a pack of lies, and those liars were never held accountable. And now they just lie some more, aided by a bought western media. Americans have gotten a little wiser though, with only 1 in 10 supporting military intervention.

-12 ( +6 / -18 )

BertieWoosterAUG. 28, 2013 - 07:27AM JST Isn't this something the UN should be doing?

Because of the slogan "Yes, we can!"

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Tamarama Aug. 28, 2013 - 11:30AM JST

Back in 1980s. US helped Saddam ruled Irag to attack Iran with chemcial weapons known as GAS! Who is a Saturn?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

Pls research more about the middle east affair before rushing to conclude. Arab spring which was provoked by west has become Arab nightmare. Palestinian are still losing their land more and more because of honest and unbiased broker known as Uncle Sam. Middle east is complicated and backward. Due to west intervention, sectarian violences are out of control in Irag. Racical tension like Iragi and Kurdish, Turkish and Kurdish are getting momentum.

I guess that is consistent with why they didn't care until now, though.

I guess US and fellow fabricators of west were desperatly want to kick off the Assad from the office. They are looking for excuse like WMD in Syrian soil. Who knows that chemical weapons are supplied by US and their allies such as Saudi. No more fabircation like yellow cakes. Only fool will trust their deceptions.

US is too care about toppling unwanted middle east leaders and creating chaos and mess. Mubarak and Hussein may be evils. At least they could control their society with stabilty and law and order.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=77999

What a sad world.

It will be a sad world because of Uncle Sam cruelty, fabrication and deception for transforming Arab spring into Arab nightmare.

Before the faithful disciples such as Australia and UK rushed to implement the Syria desert storm, they have to ask the following questions by themselves. Whether they are credible or brain washed with the western media?

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/26-08-2013/125496-syria_questions-0/

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

...and here comes WWIII

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Western leaders and the Arab League have already declared Assad guilty.

The Obama administration is trying everything within its power to sabotage the UN chemical weapons investigation, because the last time the UN investigated claims of chemical weapons use in Syria, inspectors concluded it was the rebels and not Assad's forces who were likely behind it.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Flyfalcon

So you and I basically agree then, right?

Who is a Saturn?

I give up. Who?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To the idiots in Washington: isn't your budget deficit big enough? For mercy's sake, can't you for once quell your urge to drop bombs on a third-world country and give the taxpayers a break?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

The Obama administration is trying everything within its power to sabotage the UN chemical weapons investigation, because the last time the UN investigated claims of chemical weapons use in Syria, inspectors concluded it was the rebels and not Assad's forces who were likely behind it.

CW was launched with a rocket to the populated area. The rebels do not have the rocket. As you know this is not the first CW attack (the 2nd), and UN and US have been investigating secretly since the 1st attack.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Why else become the personal Air Force for Al Qaeda and leave another country in a state of further chaos and degeneracy ? Why are we supplying terrorists with weapons and risking international escalation in any of these countries to fuel sectarian conflicts in the name of making the rebels a stronger 'negotiating' partner ? When your "enemy" is defeating himself stand aside at let him finish his work.

Brilliant post Lizz. I cannot believe that there are people in favor of attacking yet another country. You know, its popular to scoff at fringe nutters and conspiracy theorists, but when you look at the moves being made by Western powers over the last twenty years, its hard not to think that they are deliberately and systematically trying to shape a new world order.

Its disgusting that another invasion is going to happen. My deepest sympathies and apologies to the Syrian people.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Tamarama: You miss the point. Dropping a bomb on a residential district (or a missile) is hardly 'precise'.

Just about every respected military leader disagrees. Instead of asking questions on a message board maybe you should do some reading.

I guess that is consistent with why they didn't care until now, though.

What makes you think they didn't care? What actions would you have supported in the beginning? If none, does that mean you don't care?

hidingout: Its disgusting that another invasion is going to happen. My deepest sympathies and apologies to the Syrian people.

The chances of invasion are hovering somewhere around zero. You need to update your rehashed arguments and swap out some words, but I have faith in you.

Overall, this is a crappy situation for everyone involved. If chemical weapons were used, you have to do something, especially if it's proven they were used by Assad, otherwise other countries will start using them. Taking out Assad is dangerous because of who will replace him. Giving too much of an advantage to the rebels is true for the same reason. The US has been reluctant to do anything but the chemicals are a game changer, and I can't imagine anyone is Washington is looking forward to this.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If it's true that Assad or some pro Assad group did the gassing and the rebels didn't, then let's think about this. The rebels have among their number members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.http://www.policymic.com/articles/42317/who-are-the-syrian-rebels-a-basic-intelligence-briefing-on-the-assad-resistance In the commotion, they could possibly get access to the chemical weapons. Hmmm. Not good. The US/UK/etc wants to get control of these weapons before anyone can get to them. Is this possible? I don't know.

Russia is against any military action. That means the if the US/UK/etc do this, they get to diss the Russians in the process. This would be seen as an opportunity. Any time you push and don't get pushed back, it would be seen as a win. Will the Russians push back? I think so in this case, but I don't know how much. China might join with the Russians in any countermove as well.

Then, how about Hezbollah? They are considered by the US to be a terrorist organization, and they are heavily supporting Assad. If the US/UK/etc. can diminish their number, they will be happy, and Israel will certainly be happy. Israel may even use the opportunity to go after Hezbollah.

Now all of this is if Assad, or a pro Assad group did the gassing. It's pretty hard to find any moral high ground in any of this, but if he did the gassing, we could say, well, we had to do it to protect innocent lives. If Assad didn't do it, and we just don't care, then we own the gassing, because we are supporting the folks who did it. We'd also have to pretty much destroy the capital to win. Pro-Assad, Anti-Assad, etc. - lots of dead people, and the remaining ones won't thank us. Maybe some see advantages in an invasion, but for my part, I'd like to see us stay out of this one.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Tamarama AUG. 28, 2013 - 12:21PM JST

So you and I basically agree then, right?

I do not agree any aggression toward Syria without credible evidence or solid proof or concrete valid reason. Any military assault toward Syria without UN resolution will be against the law and creating another nightmare of Irag.

Remember former President Bush shamelessly declared "Mission accomplished". He was not able to complete the mission or mess he started. He is a trouble maker not a problem solver.

I congratulate Defiant Syria for not becoming chaotic and messy Irag, Egypt and Libra. That world is not owned by wild west cow boys!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Posturing by Washington. Obama wags his finger at Syria, they call his bluff, and now he has to do something. Here goes $200 million worth of cruise missiles, and a snide "we told you so." This dude cannot abide a solo action by the US. Let's send in some blue helmets and let the rest of the world pick up the tab: we're already broke thanks to, among other things, wars we shouldn't be involved in.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I just love it when JT posters talk as if they know EXACTLY what's going on in Obama's mind and whats going on on the ground in Syria. It says a lot about their personality, and we really should just try to ignore them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The need to always "do something" is the cause of so many of the world's problems.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

SuperLib

Just about every respected military leader disagrees.

Wow, SuperLib, asking military men about the effectiveness of weapons? Talk about an impartial panel of experts.

What makes you think they didn't care? What actions would you have supported in the beginning? If none, does that mean you don't care?

I'm not the one with my finger on the trigger, so my opinion isn't quite under the same scrutiny, is it?

If chemical weapons were used, you have to do something, especially if it's proven they were used by Assad, otherwise other countries will start using them.

Why? Far more people have been killed with other kinds of weapons in Syria until now, and nobody has done anything. Why the wait? Sounds like you have swallowed a Stars and Stripes coloured fishing lure here - because there is no reason to believe that one isolated attack by a nutter is suddenly going to be replicated world wide.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Didnt the egyptians mow down more people last month....why arent they going in there....those were good slaughters..no one wants this....

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Robert Fisk asks a pertinent question about the Syrian misadventure in the Independent:

Does Obama realize he is fighting for Al Quaeda?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/does-obama-know-hes-fighting-on-alqaidas-side-8786680.html

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Does Obama realize he is fighting for Al Quaeda?

Oh yeah, WilliB, it's a no-win situation for Obama. If Assad wins, well, haha, Assad wins. We know that's no good. If the rebels win, well, they're Al-Qaeda. His best option is to do absolutely nothing and let them keep fighting each other. Sure, it's not very "civil" but I think most US servicemen would have a serious problem fighting alongside people who support a group they just spent years shooting at. Let the UN deal with it.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Didn't we realize Robert Fisk was reporting for al-Qaida some years back?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

If the US goes in (or anyone else) then they deserve an ass kicking for warlike aggressive behaviour!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

John Occuypthemoon:

" Oh yeah, WilliB, it's a no-win situation for Obama. If Assad wins, well, haha, Assad wins. "

There are no good partys in this conflict. But jumping in on the side of Al Quaeda (while at the same time shooting at Al Quade with drones in Yemen, no less) surely is the height of idiocy.

Remember also that Assad is not Iran. Assad is supported by Iran, yes, but the Assad regime is Alevite, and their policies are secular Baathist. If we must choose sides, surely that is the one a Western leader with any conscience would support and not the medieval God warriors of the Muslim Brotherhood / Al Quaeda type?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Exactly! So, why instead is the west supporting hard line muslim extremists that hate the west???????

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I'd rather Obama backs no one and minds his own business. The problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that even if your guy wins, you still get evil.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

kurisupisu:

" Exactly! So, why instead is the west supporting hard line muslim extremists that hate the west??????? "

I would like to know too!!! Remember that it was Assad Jr. who changed the Syrian constitution so as to allow non-muslims to become president? The Muslim Brotherhood went ballistic about this point. And who are we supporting in this conflict? The Muslim Brotherhood, and its military arm called Al Quaeda. Insanity!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

" The US/UK/etc wants to get control of these weapons before anyone can get to them. Is this possible? I don't know."

That's a good question. The WH has stated they are aiming to take out the Command-Control centers, not the weapons themselves. Pretty sure Cruise missiles don't have a "Fetch" capability. The logical conclusion is that personnel on the ground would be required in order to secure the chemical weapons caches.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Finally there will some action to end this nightmare. Such a humanitarian disaster happening in today's world is a shame on everyone in this world. Hopefully a few missiles kill Assad, bringing a quick end to the war.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Strange how no one cared about this story until the US became involved. 100,000 people dead? No worries. The US carrying out some possible missile strikes? OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Oh wait! Looks like our buddies, Al Qaeda, are going to take care of the problem. It's good to have friends.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/28/us-syria-crisis-qaeda-idUSBRE97R08I20130828?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Having been late for the last two world wars, the U.S.A. seems determined to be on time for the next one!

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Most people around the world do not trust Assad or his goons. Now they went and used chemical weapons on innocent men, women and children. I really doubt that Al Qaeda would do this, they like shooting, bombing, slicing throats, not chemical weapons. Is there going to be any real winners if the USA etc..bomb the hell out of Syria?? Not too sure. My guess, the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians do not want to see a pro USA, pro WEST country in that part of the world. What will happen?? Who knows?? But in the end, we all will pay, Assad, anyone and everyone, karma is karma. Killing your own people etc..killing in general is very, very bad.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Hopefully a few missiles kill Assad, bringing a quick end to the war.

You think Assad is responsible for this misery?

One can get a good idea of the real reason the west wants to get rid of Assad, from this bit from an interview he gave recently:

To be very precise, I am referring to the West and not all world leaders, if these western leaders are looking to achieve their interests, they need to listen to their own constituents and to the people in this region rather than seeking to install "puppet" leaders, in the hope that they would be able to deliver their objectives. In doing so, western policy may become more realistic in the region.

Our message to the world is straightforward: Syria will never become a Western "puppet" state. We are an independent country; we will fight terrorism and we will freely build relationships with countries in a way that best serves the interests of the Syrian people.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

People were brutally murdered in Syria and now more deaths are planned to teach Syria a lesson. But what for? To overthrow government so that another one will do the same? To say delicately I am highly sceptical about this.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

You think Assad is responsible for this misery?

@OTLOTL: Well he is responsible for what's happening in his country as head of state and commander in chief of the armed forces. The protests started as a cry for liberties that have always been denied them, Assad's quote that the opposition wants to set up a "Western puppet state" pretty much sums up his delusions.

Regardless, from preliminary reports it looks like the government was responsible for using chemical weapons against its own civilians so nothing will really stop a military response against his Syria now.

If only foreign intervention happened 2 years ago, the inevitable massacre of minorities would likely never have to happen once the government is brought down, and the radicalization of likely the most heavily armed population on Earth would not have happened to such an extent as it has now.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

America is as corrupt as anyone in the world and are in no position to talk from a moral viewpoint. Ridiculous . What's more ridiculous, or should it be described as pitiful, is that many just lap up anything their govt says and believes they are some kind of beacon of light for the more unfortunate. I have little sympathy so I view this kind of delusion as despicable; < http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-forces-used-chemical-weapons-during-assault-on-city-of-fallujah-514433.html

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.html

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I really hate the word "our allies", I want you understand that those allies are been force to be allies, no one want to be part of the USG go around raping other countries resources.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

What is truly disturbing is watching the Democrat party and the mainstream media now plaing chickenhawks and clamouring to go war in another Arab country.... the same people who lambasted GWB for his ill-adviced Iraq intervention.

Only this time around it is even worse.... because this time the White House is going to war as an ally of the Muslim Brotherhood aka Al Quaeda.

And these new media chickenhawks support that.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Strange how no one cared about this story until the US became involved. 100,000 people dead? No worries. The US carrying out some possible missile strikes? OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!

There has been extensive coverage of numerous aspects of the Syrian civil war over two years but direct US involvement is significant not because so many Americans are going to die but because it has the potential to bring in other countries and create tens of thousands of more casualties to the world's most vulnerable people.

The Big Pharaoh, the preeminent Egyptian blogger, tweeted a chart that attempts to map the relations between different groups in the Middle East.

As you can see, it is a convoluted mess. The red lines show who hates whom, the blue lines show who supports whom, and the green lines show who has no clue about a group. https://twitter.com/TheBigPharaoh

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Amazing. Here we go again. Who is to say the rebels in Syria didn't steal rockets and chemical weapons from the cities that they control? One would assume that Syria doesn't keep all its chemical weapon stockpile in one place. The media just feeds on the propaganda. Doesn't it seem very strange that the Syrian government would use such weapons WHILE there are UN inspectors there? If the US/UK/France bomb Syria, Iran says it will attack Israel. Is it really worth it? The other issue of which weapons are worse, chemicals or bullets or napalm or nuclear? If you are affected by any of these weapons, you can still die an excruciating death (instantly or minutes or hours or days later). Is there really a big difference? Regarding chemical weapons, the Germans created mustard gas, sarin and tabun, the British phosgene gas, and the US created VX gas. The US still has stockpiles of various chemical weapons.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Tamarama: Why? Far more people have been killed with other kinds of weapons in Syria until now, and nobody has done anything. Why the wait? Sounds like you have swallowed a Stars and Stripes coloured fishing lure here - because there is no reason to believe that one isolated attack by a nutter is suddenly going to be replicated world wide.

Again, the opinion about chemical weapons is universal. If you don't like it, then so be it. But there are compelling reasons and even if you don't agree with them it doesn't mean they don't exist. About 90% of my posts before this specific situation happened said that we should stay out of Syria. The US government has kept it's hands mostly off of the situation. Americans aren't interested in another war. Was that the lure I swallowed?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

What is truly disturbing is watching the Democrat party and the mainstream media now plaing chickenhawks and clamouring to go war in another Arab country.... the same people who lambasted GWB for his ill-adviced Iraq intervention.

The run-up to the Iraq war is a case study in news bias: how mainstream media, especially television, were incapable of getting the truth out in the face of administration lies and innuendo. But I agree about the stunning hypocrisy of Democrats, once upon a time Pres and VP were absolutely sure that military action required Congressional approval and lambasted Bush no end for not waiting for a UN vote on Iraq. Shaky evidence, illegal acts of war to fight illegal use of weapons....Obama and the shadowy cabal which snuck him into office are the only people who want this.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Obama and the shadowy cabal which snuck him into office are the only people who want this.

I think his getting into office had more to do with his weak opponents than any shadowy cabals, but if you haven't noticed, Republicans are divided on the issue of Syria. McCain wants a stronger response. Rand Paul wants no response. Others are in-between, and are no less wishy-washy than the Democrats.

As for military action requiring Congressional approval, I love to see us get back to that, and in all matters stay a little closer to the Constitution. Restore the balance of power. Eliminate corporate campaign funding. I would like to see both parties go in that direction. They've both strayed from that path.

Polls of the American people, in any case, so far show no desire to get in the middle of this conflict.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Yari, "Less than 1 American in 10 support this action." sing a petition against this war! There are many! God willing we can stop this mistake from ever happening.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US govt are a bunch of war mongers

They have no proof and cannot produce any that it was Assad that was responsible

This is yet another false flag as 9/11 was..,,

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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