Attack on Syria is it justified ?

[MattRoxx]

Chemical attacks are guaranteed to kill large numbers of civilians. Drone attacks if done right don't.

There are plenty of people in Pakistan who would disagree with this statement.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1038672/400-civilians-died-in-339-drone-attacks-na-told


But back to America's plan of action: targeted military strikes, with no 'boots on the ground' in Syria. Would that really help, or make the situation even worse and destabilize the country. From what I've read, Obama's said something must be done to retaliate but he isn't quite sure what, and only France has so far agreed to maybe go along with the venture.

 

[nobody123]

Obama's said something must be done to retaliate but he isn't quite sure what,

Obama Promises Syria Strike Will Have No Objective

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Attempting to quell criticism of his proposal for a limited military mission in Syria, President Obama floated a more modest strategy today, saying that any U.S. action in Syria would have “no objective whatsoever.”

“Let me be clear,” he said in an interview on CNN. “Our goal will not be to effect régime change, or alter the balance of power in Syria, or bring the civil war there to an end. We will simply do something random there for one or two days and then leave.”

“I want to reassure our allies and the people of Syria that what we are about to undertake, if we undertake it at all, will have no purpose or goal,” he said. “This is consistent with U.S. foreign policy of the past.”

While Mr. Obama clearly hoped that his proposal of a brief and pointless intervention in Syria would reassure the international community, it immediately drew howls of protest from U.S. allies, who argued that two days was too open-ended a timeframe for such a mission.

That criticism led White House spokesman Jay Carney to brief reporters later in the day, arguing that the President was willing to scale down the U.S. mission to “twenty-four hours, thirty-six tops.”

“It may take twenty-four hours, but it could also take twelve,” Mr. Carney said.

“Maybe we get in there, take a look around, and get out right away. But however long it takes, one thing will not change: this mission will have no point. The President is resolute about that.”

from: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...ises-syria-strike-will-have-no-objective.html

 

[onthebottom]

Other than providing face saving cover for Obama's testicals what will be archived by cruse missile strikes in Syria?

 

[Fun_Guy]

There are no good options. To do nothing and watch women and children killed by chemical weapons is morally irresponsible. Great powers have a responsibility to act and maintain world order. If the US doesn't do it, no one else will. Canada should step up. This is not Iraq with dubious intelligence. Evidence here is strong and compelling.

 

[acutus]

The Americans are positioning to launch an attach on Syria for the use of chemical weapons. Do you think this justified or is the another hunt
for non existent weapons of mass destruction.

In my view, absolutely. The evidence so far seems clear and compelling that Assad has used poison gas weapons against civilians and killed children. I would like to believe that all reasonable men everywhere no matter what their God can understand that civilized people cannot allow children to be killed- especially with chemical weapons- without an appropriate response. The U.S. could easily use drones and 'cruise' type missiles, etc. to take out much of Assad's military tools and weapons and hopefully much of his senior military personnel so that all religious lunatics can see that there will be consequences for acts of such evil. The U.S. could do this with relative ease and low risk just as Isreal has flow a number of military assult missions into Syria. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[nobody123]

Adam Curtis has a great look at how the US intelligence and military services have been fucking up attempts at regime change and justice-by-bombs in Syria over the past 65 or so years. Typically (for him) it's way too long to quote here, but it's compelling and well worth the read:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/06/the_baby_and_the_baath_water.html

 

[acutus]

Adam Curtis has a great look at how the US intelligence and military services have been fucking up attempts at regime change and justice-by-bombs in Syria over the past 65 or so years. Typically (for him) it's way too long to quote here, but it's compelling and well worth the read:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/06/the_baby_and_the_baath_water.html

Have you read your cited reference in its entirety.....? If not 'justice-by-bombs' then what do you suggest is an appropriate response to killing children.....? Sincerely, Jon .

 

[MRBJX]

Where is the 3rd party verified evidence? Anyone got more info?

Right now there's as much evidence as there was for wmd stock piles in Iraq....12 years later we know how that went.

Sure USA attack Syria, that'll ensure the progress of the United Police State of America, because they will fight back, and they will be fierce.

oh btw, has the USA won the fight on terror yet? LOL.

 

[yolosohobby]

Assad can move his air force over to Iran to wait it out. He can hide and disburse war making assets anywhere. He wont think twice about using women and children as human shields. What useful targets will they hit? military runways? command and control centres? i mean they will have redundancies

Then what? Obama feels like a man? America is further divided? The bad guys in the world will all of a sudden stop their mischief making? The good guy will cheer America? Its lunancy of the first order.

What is the strategic objective? To send a "message".... they'd be better off to save the billion dollars they are gonna piss away and find a way to do something useful in Syria with it . God knows the refugees and normal people just trying to survive need it

Every scenario so far assumes the intelligence and analysis is right, that Assad ordered the action. What if it was a trick, a red flag op? Then where is the US if it goes alone.

The world has truly gone mad.

 

[acutus]

There are no good options. To do nothing and watch women and children killed by chemical weapons is morally irresponsible. Great powers have a responsibility to act and maintain world order. If the US doesn't do it, no one else will. Canada should step up. This is not Iraq with dubious intelligence. Evidence here is strong and compelling.

I agree. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[nobody123]

Where is the 3rd party verified evidence? Anyone got more info?

Right now there's as much evidence as there was for wmd stock piles in Iraq.

Hardly. There are firsthand reports, including videos, and a UN inspection team trying to figure out the who, what, where as we speak. Not the same at all.

Mind you, it's also looking likely that the self-appointed World Policeman (A.K.A. the good ole' U. S. of A.) knew the attacks were going to happen and said nothing. I suppose the death toll would have been higher if they had warned the rebels, and they wanted maximum carnage to justify their "reaction" to the attacks.

U.S. Had Intel on Chemical Strike Before It Was Launched


American intelligence agencies had indications three days beforehand that the Syrian regime was poised to launch a lethal chemical attack that killed more than a thousand people and has set the stage for a possible U.S. military strike on Syria.

The disclosure -- part of a larger U.S. intelligence briefing on Syria's chemical attacks -- raises all sorts of uncomfortable questions for the American government. First and foremost: What, if anything, did it do to notify the Syrian opposition of the pending attack?

In a call with reporters Friday afternoon, senior administration officials did not address whether this information was shared with rebel groups in advance of the attack. A White House spokeswoman declined to comment on whether the information had been shared.

from http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...tel_on_chemical_strike_before_it_was_launched

 

[acutus]

Hardly. There are firsthand reports, including videos, and a UN inspection team trying to figure out the who, what, where as we speak. Not the same at all.

Mind you, it's also looking likely that the self-appointed World Policeman (A.K.A. the good ole' U. S. of A.) knew the attacks were going to happen and said nothing. I suppose the death toll would have been higher if they had warned the rebels, and they wanted maximum carnage to justify their "reaction" to the attacks.




from http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...tel_on_chemical_strike_before_it_was_launched

The cited reference appears to be composed largely of 'blogs' and columnists.... Who should the U.S. have said something to....? What evidence can you provide that the U.S. wanted 'maximun carnage' to justify a reaction to Assad's chemical attacks against his citizens................? Your statements are unclear. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[acutus]

'Then what? ....... The bad guys in the world will all of a sudden stop their mischief making? The good guy will cheer America'?

Perhaps.... One thing seems certain to me, and that is the bad guys will be emboldened if there is no response beyond a lot of talk. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[nobody123]

The cited reference appears to be composed largely of 'blogs' and columnists.... Who should the U.S. have said something to....? What evidence can you provide that the U.S. wanted 'maximun carnage' to justify a reaction to Assad's chemical attacks against his citizens................? Your statements are unclear. Sincerely, Jon .

Well SincerelyJon, I know that foreignpolicy.com isn't quite as reliable as your neighbour's cat, or your toaster, or whatever the source of your bugfuck insane opinionatifyin', but lots of people seem to think it's a reasonably solid publication. And since the very first link in the article is from motherfucking whitehouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...n-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21) I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this whole "blogs-in-scare-quotes" and columnists thing.

 

[yolosohobby]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-30/25-quotes-about-coming-war-syria-every-american-should-see

title self explanatory// provides a little broader context than the bubble of media

 

[yolosohobby]

Perhaps.... One thing seems certain to me, and that is the bad guys will be emboldened if there is no response beyond a lot of talk. Sincerely, Jon .

what if the mission fails? and really, a 2 hour "mission" that knocks out a few sites is gonna scare these people? I'm not so sure. Strength, i.e. bloody combat gets respect. Drones and cruise missiles, not so much.

 

[yolosohobby]

Two questions: Do you believe the evidence, and do you believe it is wise to attack Syria.


That stated, it would certainly seem that the evidence is correct it is hard to get wrong technical intelligence that all the missiles were launched from areas under the control of the Syrian Army and landed in areas under rebel control, it is also highly suspicious that the Syrian Army would shell the the neighborhood at a rate many, many times that of the previous month immediately after the Nerve Gas attack. Likewise that the Syrian Government would deliberately obstruct the work of the U.N. Inspectors.

Is it justified is a more difficult question. Certainly the Obama Administration is showing that the devotees of the "Brother Jonathan" school of foreign policy are in control, and the statement that this has been the second and third terms of the Carter Administration applies to foreign as well as domestic policy.

Going to war based on nothing more than "they deserve to be punished" is deeply troubling. Further, I worry that there seemingly has been no thought as to follow-up, if we attack what then, and I am concerned that this has overtones of "Serbia deserves to be punished," however, I wonder if we will not all wake up on "August 2" and say how on earth did we get here i.e. I foresee real possibility of this "kicking over the ant hill" and turning a Civil War into a Regional Conflict, and even the possibility of major powers being drawn in a significant way.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...dar-bin-sultan-puppetmaster-behind-syrian-war

already counter stories coming out

 

[yolosohobby]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...hemical-weapons-based-youtube-clips-full-repo

a lot of the evidence is based on video they think the opposition couldn't render? hmmmm .......

 

[Smallcock]

If the US doesn't do it, no one else will.

Why is that? The US should not get involved in Syria at all.

Syria is no threat to the US and nothing will be achieved by bombing Syria.

 

[acutus]

Well SincerelyJon, I know that foreignpolicy.com isn't quite as reliable as your neighbour's cat, or your toaster, or whatever the source of your bugfuck insane opinionatifyin', but lots of people seem to think it's a reasonably solid publication. And since the very first link in the article is from motherfucking whitehouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...n-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21) I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this whole "blogs-in-scare-quotes" and columnists thing.

I see...... And do all those 'lots of people' who think this source is a reasonably solid publication also use motherfucking toilet mouth language when they communicate or is that just your own particular manner of discourse.....? Sincerely, Jon .