U.S. casts action in Syria as moral imperative but sets no timetable

I have never been a victim of a biological attack and hope I never experience it. But from descriptions of its effects on humans, it must be a terrible thing. Whoever is doing it to humans or animals, (or event to plants or the environment), has an evil mind.

Suppose 40 people got killed or injured in the alleged attack. I say alleged because reading in alternate media, it seems to me that intelligence agencies have their own "Hollywood" department dedicated to making things appear to their own advantage.

If the punishment for a country's actions or suspicions of any non-conforming behavior, is a military strike, (most likely missiles or conventional bombs), what is the guarantee that in these attacks, only military or targeted government institutions will be the only ones to be affected. Will civilian casualties be less than in the biological or chemical attack? So, would you be getting the satisfaction you want for retaliating, when you know also lots of civilians will be killed just like in the chemical or biological attack?

The stance presented by Obama, via Kerry's throat, is a defiant stance of unilateralism.

If the dispute about Syria were a dispute between two individuals or two corporations, both parties would have to present their claims to a judge. While both parties would maintain or at least proclaim that they have the strongest of evidences and that they are righteous, the judge might take a decision against one of them. And that party would be demanded to abide.

After two world wars, mankind felt that it needs a regulation/arbitration mechanism which would somewhat resemble a court, or a "world government". This mechanism should exercise procedures that would mitigate global conflicts. This desire led to the establishment of the UN. Now, however, more than sixty years later, we have a young and new rooster in the hen house: Obama blatantly says, via Kerry's throat, that a new order will prevail from now on: America will judge unilaterally, America will execute unilaterally.

This implies the following logical consequence: America will also decide unilaterally which government is legitimate and which is not, for each and every country. Indeed, Kerry's speech has exposed the fact that America is working on the project of replacing Assad for quite some time. Kerry described the collection process of what is claimed to be the evidence for the usage of chemical weapons by Assad; his description implied that the American forces, or local people closely cooperating with America, are densely deployed in Syria.

If your hopes are about a peaceful World through human governments, you will be frustrated forever. There is evidence of one thing: the failure of human governments to achieve peace, equity, and stability and security. In an near future, as it is written, there will be attempts to proclaim such a feat. But it will not last too long. For it is written: Whenever they are talking about peace and security, sudden death and destruction will come upon them. That is what my friend Daniel told me.

the "indiscriminate, inconceivable horror"

Ooh these would be the latest colourful adjectives employed to paint a civil (read: not your business, oh it's a moral thing) conflict as bad and wrong and we are good and right. Go ahead and lob your missiles of justice today. Oops collateral damage includes women and children and innocent civilians.

"a dictator's wanton use of weapons of mass destruction"

Colour me up we have weapons of mass destruction now, and wanton use of them.

Former President George W. Bush, who launched the invasion of Iraq in 2003, citing as justification that nation's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, told Fox News "Fox and Friends" program that Obama faced a tough decision. "I was not a fan of Mr. Assad. He's an ally of Iran and he's made mischief," Bush told Fox. "Putting our military in harm's way is the toughest decision a president will make."

Yeah, thanks for your world police wisdom once again. Do tell, what harm will the military face from their ships 1000 km away?

The people in Britain still have a voice unlike in the US, so that stopped it. France which originally started this we're going to go there with President Hollande, this guy couldn't run a lemonade stand he's running a country with so high a tax rate. We should all thank Putin, he drew the line and said no. He took such a strong stand, this man has a spine of steel.The guys running the Defense Department and the State Department all backed down. Obama will send a carrier there it's just a show of force. I don't expect anything in August or in September.

I would say too little too late but after the 'red line' comment the US has to do something to save face. After the press conference earlier today it looks like the US is going to do exactly what they should do, small scale, targeted strikes against chemical weapon manufacturing and storage sites. At least that's what I gathered from it.

Frankly, if the US was going to get involved it should have been in the early onset of the uprising so that it could cherry pick leaders and create a coherent power base to support. The US isn't necessarily 'war weary' it's tired of government flubs and missed opportunities coming back to bite us. So bomb the chemical sites and jot a note down for next time, step up or stay silent. Statements about red lines have no place is you lack the will and political capital to follow through.

I have never been a victim of a biological attack and hope I never experience it. But from descriptions of its effects on humans, it must be a terrible thing. Whoever is doing it to humans or animals, (or event to plants or the environment), has an evil mind.

We flat out flaming do not know who used them. Period. Americans cannot win in that region no matter how much treasure and blood we give attacking them, defending them, helping them, hurting them, whatever. They hate us. The only way we gain is by refusing to play. I will believe satellite photo intelligence, and that is almost it. like the ones scrubbed showing WMDs being moved from Iraq just before the 2003 US invasion. Unfortunately whatever is out there will not see the light of day for many years.

more Liberal war mongering at the expense of the populace --> Will they ever learn?

The US is telegraphing too much to Syria.

So far, the whole thing looks like a police telling a criminal when he is coming, what he is going to do. If you are a damn good police officer, you keep everything in dark and surprises to the criminal. Be swift and move fast.

So far, the whole thing looks like a police telling a criminal when he is coming, what he is going to do. If you are a damn good police officer, you keep everything in dark and surprises to the criminal. Be swift and move fast.

Realistically speaking we're talking about a turkey shoot. There really isn't anything Syria can do to stop US cruise missiles and it would be truly mad to try anything against the US ships in the Mediterranean. In some instances waiting for the bombings to come can be demoralizing in itself, though not so much in this particular situation.

... and I ask the very simple question once again, "How will bombing civilian homes and hospitals help this situation?".

It won't. But that's what the U.S. will do, because they have no morals and there is no moral imperative here. This is all about business. U.S. weapons manufacturers want the military to use up all those missiles so they can buy more, and U.S. building contractors want new contracts in Syria, and the U.S. government badly needs something to stir up fear of foreigners so that the U.S. people won't take a long hard look at what is happening back home and go, "Hey, where did the freedom go??".

“So the primary question is really no longer, What do we know? The question is, What are we - we collectively - what are we in the world gonna do about it?” Kerry said.

Now that Obama has failed to bring together a coalition of the willing, or passed a UN resolution supporting action in Syria, or asked Congress to pass a resolution supporting military action in Syria, or defined America's national interest, or made more than a few rambling statements about "red-lines" that he didn't intend to say because his teleprompter was broken - what is Obama going to do in Syria that will not look like a failure by the rest of the world?

The real question is, what is Obama alone (because no one else is willing to follow Obama as he leads the world from behind) what is Obama going to do about it?

IRAQ- fusssss Afganistan -- fusssss Somalia --- fusssss Vietnam --- Every one knows Pakistan --- Syria --- fusssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

The U.S. needs to abide by it's constitution. -

Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, control the war funding (Article I, Section 8), and has "Power … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", while the President is commander-in-chief of the military (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States. Period.

In separate statements, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry harshly condemned the Syrian government but said any military response by the United States would be measured to avoid open-ended commitments - a nod by the White House to most Americans’ reluctance to engage in another war.

The White House released a four-page, unclassified intelligence assessment that said an Aug 21 chemical weapons attack outside Damascus killed at least 1,429 civilians, including 426 children. It was the largest of multiple attacks against the Syrian opposition in the last year, the report said.

Syrian government, they sad? It's a same sort of a cheap lie that took place prior to American aggression in Iraq.

“We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale,” Obama said at the White House, calling the attacks a violation of well-established international norms that threatened U.S. allies in the region such as Israel and Jordan.

Kerry called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad “a thug and a murderer,” and said that not responding to the attacks would encourage other nations - such as Iran and North Korea - to similarly test international laws.

Kerry and Obama are real thugs and murderers.

Now that Obama has failed to bring together a coalition of the willing, or passed a UN resolution supporting action in Syria

Obama could not do a damn thing over UK parliament decision. Nada. I am glad Obama did not make an attempt to do so. Speaking UN resolution, Russia, China will not go along, you know that already. Here is what's going on with UN.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-calls-urgent-meeting-of-5-permanent-security-council-members-on-syria-crisis/2013/08/29/4211f688-10c9-11e3-a2b3-5e107edf9897_story.html

or asked Congress to pass a resolution supporting military action in Syria

The US congress is in summer vacation. When we need them, they are not in the house. Remember we are paying for their salaries. . I give a big credit to all UK Parliament members. They were called in for the emergency resolution session for Syria.

or defined America's national interest, or made more than a few rambling statements about "red-lines" that he didn't intend to say because his teleprompter was broken

So called "Red-lines" Obama was referring go to Syrian CW use, Iran's Nuke Weapon program and North Korea Nuke Weapon program. I am sure you already know that.

The real question is, what is Obama alone (because no one else is willing to follow Obama as he leads the world from behind) what is Obama going to do about it?

The real question should be. What is a consequence if we do not do anything. What is a consequence if we do something.

It is now reported that 1,400+ were killed in the chemical attack, so who really cares. Why should the US get involved since the Syrians are doing such a good job of destroying themselves? I say we should stay out of it, too hell with them all, why waste good weapons on them.

It is now reported that 1,400+ were killed in the chemical attack, so who really cares

1429 to be exact. We care because, I would like to think, America is a nation of conscience in humanity.

Why should the US get involved since the Syrians are doing such a good job of destroying themselves? I say we should stay out of it, too hell with them all, why waste good weapons on them.

It is our predicament and curse as American. We do not want to be a police of the world. But who else would take care of the world order except USA ? We do not believe in the Colonization. We believe in Freedom. The world does not seem to be a perfect place the way it is now, but without US, the world would be a lot worse and a different place to live..

thehedonistAug. 31, 2013 - 10:57AM JST The U.S. needs to abide by it's constitution. -

That'll be the day. The U.S. "land of the free" has made its constitution a joke. If the Pres wants to go to war he simply bypasses all that tricky "declaring war" paperwork and just attacks. Privacy? Gone. Habeas corpus? Gone. Freedom? Gone.

Yeah, but maybe we're reaching a point where the West just isn't as interested in the sins of the past, or at least not interested in spending time, money, or blood for them. Usually that was reserved for Africa but it looks like it's spreading to the Middle East now. Maybe the West is becoming more isolated? And is that a good or bad thing?

I don't think a strike will change much of anything on the ground in Syria. At the end of the day they'll probably charge towards 150,000 dead and a permanent state of war. And it looks like a vast majority of people in the West really aren't interested....for better or worse.

One thing's for sure. The Russians and the Chinese aren't going to do anything to help Assad's enemies.

The people in Britain still have a voice unlike in the US, so that stopped it.

Also Britain is not a military superpower, it might be better, we wouldn't want ANY friendly fire happening again.

All jokes aside.

Has nothing to do with the people. The people don't get to decide, if it were so, then there is NO way Obama would be gearing up strike back at Syria. The President is trying to get consensus from Congress, theoretically he doesn't, but he is taking that route.

It won't. But that's what the U.S. will do, because they have no morals and there is no moral imperative here. This is all about business.

We don't have morals? Lol

No, it's about Obama's ego and Obama trying to show that he is not a weak President and to keep his promise when he said last year, he would draw the line with Syria once they start using Chemical and biological weapons and now that has happened. Now it's put up or shut up. Obama doesn't want to be in this situation, but he can't afford to look any worse then he already is. With no real precise plan of action. What does he intend to do? Fire missiles? What is the objective target. Will he force Assad to leave or will he kill him? If we kill him, who will take his place? Not all of the rebels are Al Qaeda, but there are elements of them there. on Assad's side, he has the backing of Hezbollah, not to mention Russia, so I am not clear as what the President is trying to do here.

U.S. weapons manufacturers want the military to use up all those missiles so they can buy more, and U.S. building contractors want new contracts in Syria, and the U.S. government badly needs something to stir up fear of foreigners so that the U.S. people won't take a long hard look at what is happening back home and go, "Hey, where did the freedom go??".

Here we go drinking that heavily, heavily sweet, soupy Kool-aid again.

That'll be the day. The U.S. "land of the free" has made its constitution a joke. If the Pres wants to go to war he simply bypasses all that tricky "declaring war" paperwork and just attacks. Privacy? Gone. Habeas corpus? Gone. Freedom? Gone.

Lincoln did the same. The President doesn't need to consult with anyone, technically, if he wants to go it alone, he can do that. And if you don't think so, well, he's doing it. And stop talking about Freedom this and freedom that. We all have our freedoms, if not and you hear the US turning into a giant prison and we need Kurt Russell to save us, then you know our freedom has been truly eroded.

wait for another 9/11 soon?

knowing he way the chicken hawk do they thing in the US , they will find a way to do what they one.

you'll see!!

How many more people need to die either by chemicals or warheads before someone actually does something? The video of victims is just horrific. Should the perpetrators really be allowed to get away with this?

bass4funkAug. 31, 2013 - 02:49PM JST We don't have morals? Lol

Last week you were advocating killing women and children so I'd say I'm spot on really.

No, it's about Obama's ego and Obama trying to show that he is not a weak President

.. and so the same thing happened with Bush? But at the end of the day the people of the U.S. elected them so they bear full responsibility for their actions. That's how democracy works.

Here we go drinking that heavily, heavily sweet, soupy Kool-aid again.

Oh, so you have no point so you're accusing me of .. I'm not really sure... liking Kool-aid? Never had it.

Lincoln did the same.

Umm. No. Lincoln sent federal troops south with relief supplies for federal forces at Sumter. They were fired upon. Lincoln then sent more troops to deal with this since it was clearly outside the ability of the local police force to deal with. War was never declared, and it was an internal matter. The Confederacy wasn't a recognised entity, so it was impossible to declare war, it would be like... I don't know, declaring war on chocolate, or declaring war on obesity or ... I dunno, declaring war on some other nonsense concept like terror.

The President doesn't need to consult with anyone, technically, if he wants to go it alone, he can do that.

He does, you're mistaken, your opinion does not supercede the written law.

He does, you're mistaken, your opinion does not supercede the written law.

Which specific law prevents him?

No MisoAug. 31, 2013 - 05:34PM JST Which specific law prevents him?

The U.S. Constitution says it's up to Congress to declare war and to fund the military. The 1973 War Powers Resolution allows presidents to deploy troops when there's a "national emergency" caused by an attack on the country or its possessions, but then gives the executive only 60 days to get congressional approval or withdraw troops.

Specifically:

In section 2c, the War Powers Resolution affirms that: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The constitutional issue is a bit more tangental. Congress controls the budget, and so Obama needs to apply to congress to fund the war.

President Obama. If for the sake of our future you wish to be the administrator of punishment for any use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world, then wait until you have conclusive proof of who used them. No need to hurry the process of retribution. Let the world watch, and be measured about it.

If the rebels used them, then drop your tomahawks on them. Be impartial.

Word of warning. Remember that Russia is not yet convinced. Remember that Russia has an important naval facility in Tartus, Syria, on the coast of the eastern Mediterranean. Remember that Russia has recently supplied Syria with anti-ship missiles.

Thank you.

Whatever the evidence and whatever our views, it is more likely than not that Assad launched the chemical weapons but of course that is not enough. Why did Uncle Sam and its allies do nothing until now? 100,000 dead, over 1,000,000 homeless and displaced. Immeasurable suffering. It is heartbreaking and I wish there was anything I could do to stop this madness. One thing is becoming increasingly certain: it is only a matter of time before Assad, his pretty wife, children and cronies are butchered, hacked to pieces and dragged through the streets. Their smiles and smirks will be wiped off their faces just like the thousands they have murdered have been wiped off. Will we feel justice has been done? Their crimes can't be undone. When they plead for forgiveness and are cut off mid-sentence by their being beheaded, should I reach for the remote and watch something nice? OK, sounds like a plan. Then I'll sleep like a baby. Until then, I'm afraid I just can't. What goes around comes around. And around. And around.

The U.S. Constitution says it's up to Congress to declare war and to fund the military. The 1973 War Powers Resolution allows presidents to deploy troops when there's a "national emergency" caused by an attack on the country or its possessions, but then gives the executive only 60 days to get congressional approval or withdraw troops.

He's neither intending to deploy troops, or declare war. He's covered, as he is only going to lob some missiles over the fence. Whether or not I think it is right or not (more bloodshed is probably not the right answer IMHO), he has the legal grounds to do limited strikes.

Back to the story though, if doing it is wrong, then what should be done? Is "nothing" acceptable?

No MisoAug. 31, 2013 - 08:09PM JST He's neither intending to deploy troops, or declare war. He's covered, as he is only going to lob some missiles over the fence. Whether or not I think it is right or not (more bloodshed is probably not the right answer IMHO), he has the legal grounds to do limited strikes.

Oh I was so expecting this. Those missiles cost money, that's senate's role. Also, "deploy troops" means stuff like... oh, moving several carriers off their assigned routes to standby off the coast of Syria. He's already crossed the line.

Back to the story though, if doing it is wrong, then what should be done? Is "nothing" acceptable?

What he's planning is wrong. Lobbing some missiles over the fence (as you put it) won't solve anything, and will just kill innocent civilians. Doing nothing sure beats the pants off of murdering innocent civilians for absolutely NO point. Nothing will be accomplished, after all Assad is killing how own civilians, why should he care if someone else helps? If anything it'll just give Assad someone else to blame.

The U.S. has much publicised drone technology... why not just a drone with a bunch of flowers, a little note saying "Better luck with the next President", and a large calibre round to ventilate Assad? That would be a LOT better than bombing civilians who have nothing to do with this entire mess.

What he's planning is wrong. Lobbing some missiles over the fence (as you put it) won't solve anything, and will just kill innocent civilians. Doing nothing sure beats the pants off of murdering innocent civilians for absolutely NO point.

The point is to send a message to him and the world that the use of chemical weapons will generate a response. If you don't like that plan then so be it, but obviously there is a reason behind it. As for innocent civilians, I'm guessing Obama will strike military facilities that have mostly been cleared out. It's a tough decision for him to make and obviously he's not rushing into anything and he's not taking it lightly.

In the end, every use of force has the potential to kill civilians. If your standard is that every strike must guarantee no civilians are harmed then you're saying no one can ever use force. That would be a great world to live in, but as long as people like Assad and the terrorists are killing innocents left and right you're just guaranteeing that they will continue to do it and others will as well. About 1,300 civilians were gassed to death which started this situation.

This is an example of what's going on in Syria right now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594. Assad dropped napalm on a school. The video shows the people running in to get medical treatment. It's a graphic video.

The doctor in the video had some choice words for Miliband: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23909554.

Stopping airstrikes won't stop that from happening daily.

If the UN concludes the latest gas attack comes from the rebels or a nearby country, will the US attack them instead of attacking Syria?

The U.S. needs to abide by it's constitution. -

Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, control the war funding (Article I, Section 8), and has "Power … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", while the President is commander-in-chief of the military (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States. Period.

That is pretty much what candidate Obama stated a few times. President Obama seems like a completely different person!

SuperLibAug. 31, 2013 - 09:04PM JST The point is to send a message to him and the world that the use of chemical weapons will generate a response. If you don't like that plan then so be it, but obviously there is a reason behind it.

... so your "logic" is that by bombing a country that their own president is already bombing he'll... what, get all jealous that you're stealing his kills?

As for innocent civilians, I'm guessing Obama will strike military facilities that have mostly been cleared out. It's a tough decision for him to make and obviously he's not rushing into anything and he's not taking it lightly.

Recent history suggests otherwise.

In the end, every use of force has the potential to kill civilians. If your standard is that every strike must guarantee no civilians are harmed then you're saying no one can ever use force.

This is a straw man argument. There's a world of difference between targeting civilian facilities (what the U.S. is currently doing in Afghanistan and did in Iraq) and then saying "Ooops, unavoidable civilian casualties, collateral damage, they were all enemy combatants anyway...", and what you're arguing, which is that in your world the U.S. aims for only military targets and maybe kills a janitor on night duty.

There's no relationship between what you're arguing and the U.S.'s current tactics.

Also, you start by arguing that this is a message to the world, then at the end you argue that it is to save people in Syria. Which is it, because if its to save people in Syria then it is doing precisely jack... and if its a message to the rest of the world then we really need subtitles, because it looks to us like the U.S. has just gone rabid and is killing everyone in sight and honestly really needs to be put down.

Oh I was so expecting this. Those missiles cost money, that's senate's role. Also, "deploy troops" means stuff like... oh, moving several carriers off their assigned routes to standby off the coast of Syria. He's already crossed the line.

Missiles cost money, correct. So once he uses the ones in stock, he can't buy new ones, right? How many in stock? How many ALREADY paid for?

What he's planning is wrong. Lobbing some missiles over the fence (as you put it) won't solve anything, and will just kill innocent civilians. Doing nothing sure beats the pants off of murdering innocent civilians for absolutely NO point. Nothing will be accomplished, after all Assad is killing how own civilians, why should he care if someone else helps? If anything it'll just give Assad someone else to blame.

Yep, you didn't read all my post, I made the specific point of saying more bloodshed is wrong. But do try to answer the question that if Assad does this, what should the world do? Is nothing a good answer? If no, then what? Do you have the answer, or just criticism?

Frungy: it looks to us like the U.S. has just gone rabid and is killing everyone in sight and honestly really needs to be put down.

I really don't see what you add to the discussion.

The bloody "Arab Spring" in Syria must be halted immediately. The opposition must declare that it drops its ambition to topple the government forcefully. The government, on its part, must declare that it drops its ambition to re-conquer the areas held by the opposition. There must be an absolute stop to all violence. Election should be held under massive international supervision. An international examination of all crimes done by all sides, including the criminal ignition of the "Arab Spring", must be performed.

Needless to say, more oil spilled on the fire by a superpower is not necessary.

"The bloody "Arab Spring" in Syria must be halted immediately. The opposition must declare that it drops its ambition to topple the government forcefully. The government, on its part, must declare that it drops its ambition to re-conquer the areas held by the opposition. There must be an absolute stop to all violence. Election should be held under massive international supervision."

The problem with that is the Assad dictatorship will not drop its ambition to reconquer the areas held by the opposition, and will not allow "massive international supervision" of any elections. Assad was never elected in the first place.

U.S. has just gone rabid and is killing everyone in sight and honestly really needs to be put down.

What about UK? I think they have just sent a strong message to the world that UK is not willing to fight for a right cause in humanity. UK cannot solve world problems. You know the world is now calling UK as a "British Poodle", not a "French Poodle". It is a new breed.

well, again another war and more destruction. first of all it should be investigated through an independent agency with reputed people who actually used chemical weapons. why Asad would use such a weapon which provoke the world and start a war. but wait a minute just look to other cases. Behrain a country in the similar area using force against the civilian, but the US supporting the tyrants rather than the civilians. Saudi Arabia again Tyrants violating all human rights in their country, no democracy no rights for the civilian but the US supporting them. Army in the Egypt over thrown an elected president again the US support goes for Dictators. The Israel have done all the atrocities to the Palestinians but again the US support goes to the Israelis. The list goes on and on if we look to the history of the US in the world. but here is the double standard obama do not want to wait but to attack even before knowing the facts. why the US has a double standard?

No MisoAug. 31, 2013 - 09:45PM JST Missiles cost money, correct. So once he uses the ones in stock, he can't buy new ones, right? How many in stock? How many ALREADY paid for?

... those missiles are property of congress. They're assets. And who's firing those missiles? People paid by congress. And what's powering those ships? Fuel paid for by congress. You don't have a point.

Yep, you didn't read all my post, I made the specific point of saying more bloodshed is wrong. But do try to answer the question that if Assad does this, what should the world do? Is nothing a good answer? If no, then what? Do you have the answer, or just criticism?

And you didn't read all of my post. Here it is again, try reading it:

The U.S. has much publicised drone technology... why not just a drone with a bunch of flowers, a little note saying "Better luck with the next President", and a large calibre round to ventilate Assad? That would be a LOT better than bombing civilians who have nothing to do with this entire mess.

SuperLibAug. 31, 2013 - 09:58PM JST I really don't see what you add to the discussion.

... really? Well, maybe you just choose not to see.

globalwatcherAug. 31, 2013 - 10:39PM JST What about UK? I think they have just sent a strong message to the world that UK is not willing to fight for a right cause in humanity. UK cannot solve world problems. You know the world is now calling UK as a "British Poodle", not a "French Poodle". It is a new breed.

Newflash, the U.S. cannot solve the world's problems either. Since it started this mad crusade we've had escalating tensions globally as people look at the U.S. and start thinking, "Wow, we'd better increase our military size in case we're next on their hit list". China has been actively exploiting the tensions and now we're rocking on for WW3, which will certainly include the use of nuclear weapons (because no-one likes to lose)... and guess what U.S.A., you're top of everyone's first strike list.

It is pure and unadulterated idiocy of the first order, and then you have morons standing on the side-lines cheering them on.

The U.K. is showing a little bit of sanity and going, "Hey, maybe everyone should just calm down", while the U.S.A. is shouting for more innocent blood and trying to mock the U.K. like this is some sort of school-yard fight. Wake up and smell the coffee, preferably BEFORE half the world is a smoking ruin.

We will probably degrade Assad's air ability (airports and planes) while trying to leave him in power. Assad's vacuum would be a razor's edge. This certainly is risky business and I think, like others posting here, that we should step back and not intervene. Syria has devolved into a set of terrorist faction groups all seeking destabilization as a means to expansionism. How this is going to result in less chemical weapons use would actually be hilarious if it wasn't so serious.

well, again another war and more destruction. first of all it should be investigated through an independent agency with reputed people who actually used chemical weapons.

The UN probe was only sent to determine whether or not a chemical weapon was used. The UN lacks the time, ability, or authority to determine who used actually used it so the idea of waiting for the UN team report is essentially pointless. Unless a few hundred people spontaneously learned how to kill themselves without visible sign of death I'm pretty sure we already know a chemical weapon was used by somebody.

why Asad would use such a weapon which provoke the world and start a war. but wait a minute just look to other cases.

From what I've gathered in other news sites and in government debriefs it probably wasn't Assad directly but either his brother or an overzealous commander. In any case the rebel forces lack the ability to launch an attack on the scale required for that many overnight casualties.

Wow, we'd better increase our military size in case we're next on their hit list

Because that's worked so well lately. The primary drivers for military expansion in most countries is to combat the unemployment and lack of opportunity that is becoming rampant in many developing nations.

The U.K. is showing a little bit of sanity and going, "Hey, maybe everyone should just calm down"

Chemical weapon use was declared unacceptable and set as a point at which action was needed long before the weapons were used. In US documents there have been numerous small scale chemical attacks which have culminated in this much larger one. The whole point of saying chemical weapons are a no-no is to prevent their use in future conflicts. I'd rather see every chemical weapon facility in Syria leveled than risk their proliferation or further use.

while the U.S.A. is shouting for more innocent blood

Hyperbole, charming. Nothing in any news source I can locate indicates anything of the sort. By all accounts the US is interested in removing chemical weapons, their manufacture, and storage from play by using strategic missile strikes from one of the several navy cruisers off in the Mediterranean sea. Anybody with an inkling of common sense would probably know not to be hanging out around such sites in the next couple of weeks and if they decide to camp out there anyway, I guess that's tough.

This is another war we won't win. Again America pretends to have the moral high ground.

Chemical weapon use was declared unacceptable and set as a point at which action was needed long before the weapons were used. In US documents there have been numerous small scale chemical attacks which have culminated in this much larger one. The whole point of saying chemical weapons are a no-no is to prevent their use in future conflicts. I'd rather see every chemical weapon facility in Syria leveled than risk their proliferation or further use.

The above is stated in a serious, formal, important, pseudo-reliable, pseudo-respectable, pseudo-authoritative tone, just like the tone of the American president and his secretary of state. However, according to Wikipedia---

Agent Orange is the combination of the code names for Herbicide Orange (HO) and Agent LNX, one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its chemical warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use.

We don't have the money for another war. We build new schools and hospitals in Iraq, but not in America.

... those missiles are property of congress. They're assets. And who's firing those missiles? People paid by congress. And what's powering those ships? Fuel paid for by congress. You don't have a point.

Fact is all of what you mention is budgeted for, and unless Obama asks for MORE then he can use what is there. Put simply, unless Obama intends to recruit new staff to man new ships to fire new missiles, then what is there is already paid for.

And you didn't read all of my post. Here it is again, try reading it:

Your offerings weren't actually serious though, were they?

"The President is the military's commander-in-chief; however Article One gives Congress and not the President the exclusive right to declare war. Presidents have often deployed troops with Congressional authorization, but without an explicit declaration of war. According to historian Thomas Woods, "Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution — which refers to the president as the 'Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States' — has been interpreted to mean that the president may act with an essentially free hand in foreign affairs, or at the very least that he may send men into battle without consulting Congress."[4] Since World War II, every major military action has been technically a U.S. military operation or a U.N. "police action", which are deemed legally legitimate by Congress, and various United Nations Resolutions because of decisions such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or the Authorization for Use of Force."-

When you grant one single branch this kind of power. this is the first step towards an authoritarian government. The system of checks and balance was set in place for a reason. He is commander-in-chief, that does not mean he is free to by-pass congress to send soldiers into a conflict/war unless the United States is under imminent attack. The American people should be raising holy hell about this!

that does not mean he is free to by-pass congress to send soldiers into a conflict/war

Just refresh us to be clear, exactly how many soldiers is he sending into a conflict/war? I heard he was just intending to disable use of chemical weapons.

@frungy

Last week you were advocating killing women and children so I'd say I'm spot on really.

I never said such a thing! That is an outright lie! I was and never will be for killing innocent people, purposely. I said, that if I had to make a decision between a child running towards me with a suicide vest on ready to detonate it, I would have to decide kill or be killed and for me that is a very clear decision to make.

.. and so the same thing happened with Bush? But at the end of the day the people of the U.S. elected them so they bear full responsibility for their actions. That's how democracy works.

Looking back in hindsight, a lot of people wish NOW they could turn back the clock. At least were he still President today, there is no way that Russia would go this far, Syria also would be more cautious. I'm not trying to get inside the man's head as to what he would do, but at least, his enemies feared him, he didn't BS around, unlike Obama, where all the Russians, Iranians and Chinese walk all over him. Obama doesn't project strength. He projects weakness, now that may be what you want, but having a strong leader of the free world does put a lot of these rouge leaders on check, like it or not. Now Obama is trying to do that and he is failing miserably at it. I feel bad for the Syrian people, but Obama is going about it the wrong way with no clear goals.

Oh, so you have no point so you're accusing me of .. I'm not really sure... liking Kool-aid? Never had it.

Sure, you did. If not, then you wouldn't be spouting off these outrageous statements.

Umm. No. Lincoln sent federal troops south with relief supplies for federal forces at Sumter. They were fired upon. Lincoln then sent more troops to deal with this since it was clearly outside the ability of the local police force to deal with. War was never declared, and it was an internal matter. The Confederacy wasn't a recognised entity, so it was impossible to declare war, it would be like... I don't know, declaring war on chocolate, or declaring war on obesity or ... I dunno, declaring war on some other nonsense concept like terror.

I don't know what history books you are reading or who wrote them, but just to let you know Lincoln suspended habeas corpus on April 27, 1861 just a few weeks after the famous attack on the Union Garrison at Fort Sumter. He saw that there was an emanate danger of a rebellion growing by the Peace Democrats and that there was a VERY REAL possibility that they might take over Washington and in particular the White House. Because of this emanate threat on Lincoln's orders, he had his troops arrest the chief of police, the mayor of Baltimore and some of the politicians that were involved so that they could NOT vote to secede from the Union. Lincoln knew that would have been a disaster and the end of the US as we know, had that come to pass. He did what he had to do to keep the country from falling apart and into chaos.

The President doesn't need to consult with anyone, technically, if he wants to go it alone, he can do that.

Actually, the President doesn't need congressional approval, if he feels the danger is severe enough, he CAN override congress. Ask Clinton

He does, you're mistaken, your opinion does not supercede the written law.

Sorry, it's not my opinion, but if the President feels the need to act or there is rising emanate danger, he can take decisive action. Also, stop bringing up the constitution constantly. If you go by that, then that would also mean that Blacks are 3/5 of a person, then you surely would HAVE to agree with that. It is an interpretation of the law and laws are subject to change or can be modified depending on the circumstance of the situation or crisis.

YGHome3Sep. 01, 2013 - 05:26AM JST

Chemical weapon use was declared unacceptable and set as a point at which action was needed long before the weapons were used. In US documents there have been numerous small scale chemical attacks which have culminated in this much larger one. The whole point of saying chemical weapons are a no-no is to prevent their use in future conflicts. I'd rather see every chemical weapon facility in Syria leveled than risk their proliferation or further use.

The above is stated in a serious, formal, important, pseudo-reliable, pseudo-respectable, pseudo-authoritative tone, just like the tone of the American president and his secretary of state. However, according to Wikipedia---

Agent Orange is the combination of the code names for Herbicide Orange (HO) and Agent LNX, one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its chemical warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use.

Great post, but you are missing a point. The CW used by Syria is actually a Sarin, not a Agent Orange. I just want to set a record straight for JT viewers.

Also, stop bringing up the constitution constantly. If you go by that, then that would also mean that Blacks are 3/5 of a person, then you surely would HAVE to agree with that.

The counting of slaves as “three-fifths” of a person was for representation purposes. The fewer slaves counted the fewer number of representatives. “It had NOTHING to do with the worth of a person and EVERYTHING to do with diminishing the power of” the pro-slavery Southern states.

It is an interpretation of the law and laws are subject to change or can be modified depending on the circumstance of the situation or crisis.- The sontitution can be changed. However politicians to often change or modify laws when it is in their best intrests not Americas.

@thehedonist

True that. I was just pointing out that one significant point, even though you are right, there was a consensus that actually believed around that time that Blacks didn't have a soul, therefore them being represent in ANY political process is unimportant and insignificant.

Agent Orange is the combination of the code names for Herbicide Orange (HO) and Agent LNX, one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its chemical warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use.

As well as many US soldiers who came in contact with it because the US didn't fully understand the long term effects of the substance. An act of negligence hardly vindicates an action of malice and even if the US had full comprehension of the effects of Agent Orange are you suggesting that it makes the use of Sarin gas permissible? An appeal to hypocrisy is not much of a leg to stand on.