world

U.S. willing to go it alone against Syria if necessary

64 Comments
By DEB RIECHMANN and KIMBERLY DOZIER

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

64 Comments
Login to comment

Oh, I thought he meant go it alone with Congressional approval.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

President Obama can do anything he chooses as long as he keeps USA troops out of Syria. The neighbors can send in the troops if they choose to support the action.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

This is how U.S. military decisions in the Mideast going to work? This is a Syrian civil war. U.S. or NATO has no place in it. They need to figure it out themselves. Even if Assad used chemical weapon that killed 1,000 people , we already know that 99,000 were killed by conventional weapon. Are we saying killing people by conventional weapons are ok? And if U.S. military attacks Syria and overthrows Assad, who is going to take over the leadership in Syria? What about their neighboring coutries involvement if U.S. increases military activitiy? It will become another mess for U.S.

10 ( +14 / -4 )

This is NOT going go end well. Russia is going to support Syria should the U.S. attack.

This very well could get really ugly, really quickly, will all the major players involved.

Syria is just a proxy. Syria is one of few countries not controlled by the banking Cartel.

Syria is the doorway to Iran.

All of this is to keep the petrodollar alive.

Lots of innocent people are going to die, just as millions have in the last century.

Long live democracy.

4 ( +12 / -8 )

@sfjp330 the biggest difference between chemical warfare and conventional bombs is the fact that chemicals stay in the ground, affect plants and animals beyond their targeted human beings. Try drinking the water after a chemical warfare attack and you'll find its been poisoned. Just like nuclear warfare, the after effects of the chemicals used affect the environment for a very long time and don't always stay contained to a particular area.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@HonestDictator

Sure, Syria has problem with use of chemical warfare. But was it ok for U.S. to use in Vietnam . Approximately 20 million gallons of herbicides were used in Vietnam between 1962 and 1971 to remove unwanted plant life and leaves which otherwise.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Obama is just another Bush, but with a different voice and appearance. Exactly what does he plan to accomplish? The only obvious plan would be "regime change", but who would take Assad's place? Which of the rebels would be the leader? We can't forget that Al Qaeda and other extremists are among those fighting among the rebels.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not well thought out, with real clear objective other than to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and the Taliban. No thought was given to the post-war period. Sectarian violence has kept Iraq unstable, and Afghanistan's government is weak and corrupt, and will probably ind itself once again in the hands of the Taliban.

If Obama wants to do the job right, he should commit to an all-out assault, clear out all opposing forces, disarm all militias, and declare Syria to be an American territory under American admistration. This, of course, will never happen. What will happen is that will be dropped, troops will be deployed, untold thousands will die, and the end result will be a Syria which is more violent and unstable than before.

When one commits to war, one should commit fully, intending to conquer, dominate, and administrate. There are no half or quarter measures. Every attempt at limited war America has engaged in has ended in failure. Obama will never fully commit, so he should stay out of Syria altogether.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Obama's legacy will not be enhanced going into Syria.He's bluffing.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

He needs support in US Congress. I am sure the Republicans in the house will not give their support.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

sfjp330

That was before they were banned by international convention. They don't use them anymore and haven't for years. Also there is a world of difference between Agent Orange and Sarin or VX nerve gas.

The situation in Syria is a mess. I have no idea what the right answers are.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

If the US do chose to get involved, you can bet it has nothing to do with the welfare of the Syrian people. They haven't bothered until now, whilst 100,000 people have died.

If they strike Syrian Army infrastructure, or Assad himself, and the regime crumbles, those chemical weapons are then dangerously exposed - especially with Uncle Al Qaida on the ground there, not to mention several other nefarious groups in Syria. Once bedlam breaks out, the only way the US can secure those weapons is by entering the country. Imagine the glee of Hezbollah and the Iranians, not to mention all other disenfranchised parties in the Middle East who have an axe to grind with the US.

Add to that, Israel and the current problems in Egypt, and this thing could really kick off.

This is a mistake and it has the potential to run long into the night.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that the use of force without a sanction of the U.N. Security Council would be a “crude violation” of international law and “lead to the long-term destabilization of the situation in the country and the region.”

It would seem that the US could wait to see the results of the investigation before rushing in. I would think that there is a good possibility that "a rogue element of the military" is responsiblie, if not rogue elements from among the rebels themselves.

Another question is how launching cruise missiles into a city of 2 million is going to be helpful...

7 ( +8 / -1 )

If John Kerry is so convinced that Assad used chemical weapons against his people, why not give the UN weapons inspectors time to prove it. One of the things that's being said is that Obama wants to do something after he gets back from vacation and before he goes to Russia for the G20 meeting next Monday, which means Thursday through Sunday something has to be done. What's the rush? Police action against Assad is not going to stop the civil war.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Proof? we don't need no stinkin' proof!

1 ( +5 / -4 )

The Obama administration said Wednesday it would take action against the Syrian government even without the backing of allies or the United Nations because diplomatic paralysis must not prevent a response to the alleged chemical weapons attack outside the Syrian capital last week.

This is not good.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@sfjp330 and if you haven't realized, the US has learned its lesson. Many other countries like Iraq and now Syria have not as they appear to think its a good idea to use them.

Personally I'm all for the US staying out of it. The ME is a mess and as far as I'm concerned screw them and their personal hell-hole they're hell bent on creating (and re-creating) for themselves. If Russia wants to sell its weapons to Syria, let them. The US needs a long deserved break from trying to fix other countries problems in the "interests" of US "stability and peace". Time to go pre-WW2 isolationist except for our treaties with places like Japan/NATO/EU/Phillipines/SK etc.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I hope, someday in the future, somebody SLAPS that Nobel Peace Prize ouda Obamas hand.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The Americans allow their own people to be massacred by conventional weapons and do nothing about it, so it's no surprise they haven't got involved up to now. But whether you are killed by chemical weapons or conventional weapons, the end result is the same. Besides, a country that keeps a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons is hardly in a position to lecture on the morality of weapons of mass destruction.

Illegally attacking another country sounds like state-sponsored terrorism to me. Also, they say they want to "deter" Assad, but they rule out directly targeting him. How this is meant to deter him isn't clear. If you believe that Assad is responsible for gassing his citizens then you can try to arrest him and try him in a court.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Obama used a press statement with the president of Turkey a few weeks ago to signal his growing support for Islamist political priorities in Turkey, Syria and Egypt. Both leaders are cooperating to push Egypt to get Muslim Brotherhood people back into the government, and to back the MB against Al Queda rebel forces in Syria that would establish a regional Islamic dictatorship, I thought at one point that was all it was -- the president supporting the growth of Sharia verses secular governments, now I’m even not sure about that. It appears something else must be involved to reach this level of insanity so suddenly. This certainly is not about gas and his concern for the Syrian people, that is for sure.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Lots of criticism leveled using only people's speculation of what might happen. From invasions, to regime change, to thousands of people dead, people seem comfortable letting their imaginations run wild.

Tamarama: If the US do chose to get involved, you can bet it has nothing to do with the welfare of the Syrian people. They haven't bothered until now, whilst 100,000 people have died.

You haven't really bothered, either. And I think it's been made clear that the issue is with chemical weapons, not with ending a humanitarian crisis. No one cares about that.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"This is a Syrian civil war. U.S. or NATO has no place in it. They need to figure it out themselves."

But it's OK for the Russians to support Assad, right?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

eeew, no bible thumping please.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Obama is becoming more and more ridiculous. Almost wonder if he is not the Antichrist of the Book of Revelation.

Or psychotic. Or maybe just looking to burnish his image In any case, 15 or 20 incidences of chemical weapons have been going on in Syria for over a year without comment, but we have to detail the time and place of retaliation in advance, and it has to be this week.....and his actions threaten the very security of this nation and may completely destabilize an already shaky Middle East. Bronco Bush at least went through the motions of getting UN support and some measure of agreement from the US Congress, rather than go off with the hammer only half-cocked on the six-shooter.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Is Obama really going to attack the Syrian regime taking sides with Al Qaeda and assorted Islamist rebels? What about a the vote in the UN? Not to mention a vote in the US Congress. It wasn't that long ago that then Senator Biden was threatening to impeach former President Bush if he didn't get a vote in Congress to go to war. Now it's just attack Libya attack Syria willy-nilly with nary a word about getting a vote for any of it. Funny how things can change...

4 ( +8 / -4 )

SuperLib

You haven't really bothered, either. And I think it's been made clear that the issue is with chemical weapons, not with ending a humanitarian crisis. No one cares about that.

Apart from posting here as well, how, exactly have you 'bothered', SuperLib?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

But it's OK for the Russians to support Assad, right?

Yes, of course. Not Russia only, but China supports Assad. Americans and their euro sidekicks support rebels from Al Qaeda.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

"You don't have to go it alone!" - Bono

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

sfjp330 Aug. 29, 2013 - 07:40AM JST

Sure, Syria has problem with use of chemical warfare. But was it ok for U.S. to use in Vietnam . Approximately 20 million gallons of herbicides were used in Vietnam between 1962 and 1971 to remove unwanted plant life and leaves which otherwise.

During the Iran and Irag war, US supplied chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein who was a darling of US for killing Iranians too. Of course US did not use it byself. However it has manufactured and supplied to Irag. It is OK for US killing thousand of unarmed Women and Childern and elderly. However it is not OK for Syria or Libra. It is OK for Egypt military or Myanmar military for killing many unarmed protestors too. US is hypocrite and always uphold the double standard. Besides that US was a first nation to use the chemical weapons.

Unlike Irag, Syria is backed by Hazaboolah of Lebanon, Iran and Russia. US and West backed Al Qaida. It is very hard for me to understand US is backing Al Qaida who is responsible for 9/11 crime. Even own citizens were being killed, US will change the friend depending on the Geo Political interest.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

It seems that the US is very ready to join another war and can't stay away from it any more. More innocent people would die there.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Besides that US was a first nation to use the chemical weapons.

If you are referring to the Army suppling disease infested blankets to Native Americans over a hundred years ago, well, that would be biological. But I think the Germans were the first to use chemicals in WW1, on a large scale.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the USA want to fully interview Syria and trigger a war to overwhelm the current Gov't, this will help China in Asia a lot. Because this can take a lot heat from Asia. It is another opportunity for China and maybe will be a tomb for the USA. Because Russia and Iran even China will support Syria in public or private.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Let's hope for a louder opposition this time and that this will not be another US international war crime to add to an already deplorable historical record.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Lots more interest in Syria now that the US is considering taking action. Before, an article about death in Syria would be lucky to get 5 posts.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

While not exhaustively, I've tracked some 30 articles with this same headline; they all seem to be the same piece. None of them specify who the administration's spokesperson actually is. It's not Obama; it's not Biden; it's not Kerry. Who said this? Anyone know?

I don't doubt this sentiment is strongly represented in the Obama White House; I just always have to wonder about unnamed, generic sources and dozens of articles that are word-for-word identical.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@Xeno

She's called Marie Harf. She used to work for the CIA. That's all I know.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Hope and Change....

0 ( +3 / -3 )

the US has not business interferring in the Middle east, we have neither the money to afford it nor the international respect to make anything we do any more than a grandstanding ploy by the idiot in the White House who even Newsweek last week condemmed saying....Barrack Hit the Road! in a cover story. Time we cleaned house and stiopped playing 1970s style world domination. Let the middle east solve its own problems.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Nice mess there in Syria. Idiot Assad may be using chemical weapons against his own people. People are dead but no one is really sure if it was Assad and his goons or others trying to make his regime look bad. Can anybody here explain why Russia, China and Iran support Assad?? This really makes Russia, China and Iran only look worse and worse for supporting an evil president/dictator like Assad. I just hope this is not going to be another Iraq style mess, where the USA etc..gets bogged down on another Middle Eastern country and their civil war kind of mess. Syria has no oil, right?? Why are so many countries so worried about Syria?? I really doubt that so many countries actually care if this idiot Assad used chemical weapons against his own people etc...many here say Syria is just proxy, ok. So a proxy war against?? Iran?? Against Russia?? Against China?? Against Iran, kind of makes sense but Russia and China make no sense.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

America IS the problem.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

" The U.S. has not publicly presented proof that Assad’s government used deadly chemical weapons near Damascus last week."

They're busy manufacturing it.

Please differentiate between USA(the people - most of whom oppose any intervention ) and US Gov (the elected and unelected elites).

Surely, the end result will be rainbows and unicorns, right Superlib?

Involvement is a monumental, monstrous mistake.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

NathawAug. 29, 2013 - 11:37AM JST

Unlike Irag, Syria is backed by Hazaboolah of Lebanon, Iran and Russia. US and West backed Al Qaida. It is very hard for me to understand US is backing Al Qaida who is responsible for 9/11 crime. Even own citizens were being killed, US will change the friend depending on the Geo Political interest.

No, US is NOT backing Al Qaida. This is a very difficult situation for US to take.

I am posting a whole ABC press release here as there have been many distorted unfair posts on JT. I am hoping you would comprehend what US government is trying to do..

The U.S. could hit Syria with three days of missile strikes, perhaps beginning Thursday, in an attack meant more to send a message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad than to topple him or cripple his military, senior U.S. officials told NBC News on Tuesday.

The State Department fed the growing drumbeat around the world for a military response to Syria's suspected use of chemical weapons against rebels Aug. 21 near Damascus, saying that while the U.S. intelligence community would release a formal assessment within the week, it was already "crystal clear" that Assad's government was responsible.

Vice President Joe Biden went even further, bluntly telling an American Legion audience in Houston: "Chemical weapons have been used."

"No one doubts that innocent men, women and children have been the victims of chemical weapons attacks in Syria, and there's no doubt who's responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria: the Syrian regime," Biden said.

White House press secretary Jay Carney repeated Tuesday that the White House isn't considering the deliberate overthrow of Assad.

"The options that we are considering are not about regime change," said during a daily briefing with reporters. "They are about responding to the clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons."

But Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., an influential voice on military matters, pressed the administration to go further, calling for the U.S. and its allies to provide weapons to "the resistance on the ground."

"The important part of this whole situation is, is this just going to be just a retaliatory strike that has no lasting impact or something that changes the momentum on the ground in Syria?" McCain told reporters in Mesa, Ariz., after an event on immigration reform.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

IRAQ is a mistake... after 10 years -- SYRIA is a serious mistake.....

3 ( +6 / -4 )

The fool in the White House is determined to play air force for Al Quaeda.

I have never been disgusted with a US administration as much as with this one.

Is the Potus acting out of pure stupidity?

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

The world will be a better place without the American regime, they are the single most larges terror orgainsation in the universe. Completely rule of man not rule of law and America is treating the rest of the world as inferior.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

globalwatcherAug. 29, 2013 - 02:10PM JST

My humble memory is still fresh with WMD fabrication story about Irag. The main reason of US invasion there was toppling Saddam Hussein. According the Hollywood movie "A few good men", there are not many good men in CIA. They will fabricate and exaggerate Assad is the one responsible for that. Back in January, there was a leaked email between British contractor and two senior officials from US has been already seen from the Web. about US admin intention about Syria. Syria will become another Irag for creating another fake story. Who knows chemical weapons are used by Hazzabolla or Lebanon or Al Qaida or Saudi agents?

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

Obama has surname Hussein. Even he may be not a Muslim, he has a sympathy to Muslin Brotherhood of Egypt and Syria. Not all of rebles from Syria are Al Qaida. However many of them are Al Qaida. Therefore assuming US will supply weapons to them wil end up they will make another 9/11. Saddam Hussein was trained and supplied by US for countering Iran in 1980s. Later on he became posionous too.

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

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

@Matthew Simon

"That was before they were banned by international convention. They don't use them anymore and haven't for years. Also there is a world of difference between Agent Orange and Sarin or VX nerve gas."

The US used chemical weapons in Fallujah just a few year ago. Now children there are being born with all kinds of birth defects.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-forces-used-chemical-weapons-during-assault-on-city-of-fallujah-514433.html

And CIA files show that the US helped their friend Saddam when he used chemical weapons in Iran.

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

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Americans going in with guns blazing is not how to solve this. You'd think they'd understand that by now

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Jean: Please differentiate between USA(the people - most of whom oppose any intervention ) and US Gov (the elected and unelected elites).

Good luck with that. Foreigners don't make much of a difference when they have a good rant going.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Americans going in with guns blazing is not how to solve this. You'd think they'd understand that by now

Obama with his Nobel Peace Prize, about to launch missiles into cities probably full of civilians, and be responsible for the deaths of even more US servicemen. What an embarrassment. He's worse than Bush, and just as bad as any other. This won't "solve" anything. It will just contribute to the rich getting richer, and the poor getting killed or maimed and praised for how "patriotic" they are. I fail to see how we are "defending freedom" by assisting a terrorist organization halfway around the world. Disgraceful.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Nice mess there in Syria. Idiot Assad may be using chemical weapons against his own people

Not Assad but rebels.

People are dead but no one is really sure if it was Assad and his goons or others trying to make his regime look bad. Can anybody here explain why Russia, China and Iran support Assad??

Because Assad was legally elected in a sovereign state. Because Russia, China and Iran are not US puppets.

This really makes Russia, China and Iran only look worse and worse for supporting an evil president/dictator like Assad.

For the USA, some US puppets from Europe and for Al Qaeda? Big deal.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

So are the cruise missiles going to miraculously avoid hitting any civilian targets?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The UN will not commit to use of force in Syria for the same reason they would not commit in Iraq; many member states in the UN have contracts with Syria, and Assad's money is more than enough to buy votes in the security council. Russia is the main arms supplier to Syria, and Syria provides oil to Russia and China. That being so, Russia and China will not support any resolution which challenges Syria.

If Obama wants to do anything in Syria, he will have to do it himself.

Unfortunately, this is all Obama's fault, he has been slowly painting himself into a corner with ill-conceived statements and speeches, and he will be forced to act on his words, lest the world come to believe he is a man who can't be taken seriously.

The world is crying out for leadership, but it seems there is no one there with the strength to lead.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Just to remember, under the Assad regime, the rights minorities in Syria (Alevites, Shia, Christians, Druzes, and Jews) are proteced. The Bath regime is interested in self-survival, not in religious persecution. Actually, Assad Jr. changed the Syrian constitution to allow also non-muslims to become president in Syira. Something that sent the Muslim Brotherhood into violent rage. And something that is of course unthinkable in the Arab countries surround Syria.

All that is going to change, if the Muslim Brotherhood / Al Quaed "rebels" take power in Syria. They have already distinguished themselves by murdering Christian priests, burning down churches, and imposing radical Sharia in the "liberated" areas.

And Obama and the other Western chickenhaws are supporting...... the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Quaeda?

What insanity.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The US never goes alone, they just go first.

even without the backing of allies or the United Nations

Whatever, they'll still be called to help do the cleaning later.

Syria provides oil to Russia and China

And they will whatever the regime.

for the same reason they would not commit in Iraq;

For the main reason is they don't think they can bring a positive change. Proven in Iraq, no ? WilliB, it's clearly the plague or the cholera and ideally, we'd throw the Jihad Bros and the Assads in the same jail in a dungeon's cave and lose the key.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The US is not going to war yet, and according to a recent article from the AP: House Speaker John Boehner called on President Barack Obama on Wednesday to deliver a specific rationale for using U.S. military force against Syria as a growing number of congressional Republicans and Democrats expressed concerns about war with a Mideast nation roiled by civil conflict.

So even the congress isn't ready for war, just the one guy with a lot to gain with a win, and a whole lot more to lose with a loss, Obama.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Whether you agree with the U.S. taking military action or not does not matter. What matters is that on the one hand the U.S. Congress cries that the U.S. is broke but now clamors for military action, how do they propose to pay for it? If the NeoCons want another war they need to raise taxes to pay for it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

to deliver a specific rationale for using U.S. military force

Agreed. Since the plans they have put out are incoherent on any number of levels, I do still have hope this is closer to a big head fake strategy than a high school popularity contest. OTOH, According to one unnamed “U.S. official” quoted by the LA Times, the Administration wants a military strike “just muscular enough not to get mocked.” Churchillian, this is not.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

let them solve the internal problems. a new war will sink the global economy again.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Let's see, support Assad or support terrorist sponsored rebels or do nothing.

I think Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that if you don't have the stomach to stay involved until the terrorists are well and truly defeated then it's better to stay out.

BTW, the neocons and Obama are two different camps. Or are you calling Obama a neocon? He's certainly starting to act like Cheney/Bush.

I can't see any good coming out of the US attacking Syria.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Meanwhile, facts related to the question who initiated the bloody "Arab Spring" in Syria are being revealed. It has been just announced that British Special Forces are on the ground, marking targets. If they are on Syrian land now, it means that American forces are there with them, not from today and not from yesterday.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If Russia and Iran wanted to settle this diplomatically, they should have started a long time ago. What ever they are doing is having zero effect. Every time a major conflict happens upon the world I question the existence of the UN more and more. I do not doubt the good they do in the world but they will never reach a consensus on any conflict now or in the future as long as Russia, China and U.S. stand apart and have separate allies. Utterly useless.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

What is this, the fifth or sixth military thing Mr. Obama has led us into or extended out? Wasn't he awarded a Nobel Prize for Peace for his "potential" at peace making? Isn't it about (or PAST) time he sent that back with a public, written apology? And where's CodePink? Where are their operatives with blood-smeared hands for Sec'y of State Kerry? Where are their protesters with their slogans and epithets? Where are the "Give Peace a Chance" organizations, who want the US to just "give peace a chance" and are willing to go toe-to-toe with anyone who disagrees with them? Where are the Hollywood Celebrated who wore T-shirts and dresses and blouses and gowns emblazoned with their "protest" to "war"? Where are Jane Fonda and Susan Sarandon and Michael Moore and Drew Berrymore and the other movie vocalists that shouted down anyone who supported military action against terrorists abroad in the past and made movies decrying warfare of any kind? All of these are ready to take "President" Obama to task just as hey did Presidents Reagan, H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, right? They are ready with their banners, placards, megaphones, activists and organizations, right? They are hitting the streets as I write this and marching down Pennsylvania Ave. to give Mr. Obama what for.........right?

After all, our "President" promised us time and time again, lectured us, in fact, on the merits of how he was going to sit down with our enemies and talk out our differences. Has Mr. Obama been to Syria? Has he sat down with Mr. Assad, and the leader of the rebels, and talked out the differences? If he hasn't, why isn't he? Why, all of the sudden, is Mr. I-was-against-the-war-in-Iraq and I-want-to-sit-down-with-Mr.-Ahmadinijad now talking "tough"? But this is all smoke and mirrors, right? Really, he's on Air Force One right now, heading to Damascus to talk this out.........right?

Right?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Latest news - the UK won't be joining the festivities, voting against military action.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

China and Russia are doing a good job of diplomatically isolating the United States. So when the Americans attack without any backing it is a victory to China and Russia.

1 ( +2 / -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