The Syria Crisis

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by GenjiChan

Who ever succeeds in controlling Syria, I pray it'll not be some terrorist/extremist/radicals....

No difference. Too late for that. And the potential attack would make it worse.

[sbg711]

US's main goal is to make a mess in the middle east. It's a conscious decision. Like shooting at a beehive on your neighbor's side of the fence. Because otherwise it'll be hard to invent pretexts and set up conditions for invading Iran and keeping Russia's growing influence at bay.

[Shay]

Originally Posted by sbg711

US's main goal is to make a mess in the middle east. It's a conscious decision. Like shooting at a beehive on your neighbor's side of the fence. Because otherwise it'll be hard to invent pretexts and set up conditions for invading Iran and keeping Russia's growing influence at bay.

I know and it is so blatantly obvious it is criminal. Literally

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

I wish they stop with the "we are doing this for our own security" card. The chemical weapons have been around for ages, the warning strike might weaken Assad and allow them to fall in the wrong hands. And everyone knows military strike breeds hatred and generate more attacks later.

They are trying to threaten Assad, but they don't want to weaken him? What kind of silly plan is that? And the argument for international law just doesn't make sense if the US isn't going to wait for the UN to back them up...

[Fireminer]

Everyone, bring some popcorn for a new episode of "Greedy but Foolish Uncle Sam and his never-ending Paranoid"!

[Shay]

http://news.sky.com/story/1134732/sy...ase-for-action

Live commons debate. David Cameron UK Prime Minister is making his case for action. This should be fun!

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Obama on PBS claim:
1.That he hasn't decided on a military strike on Syria as of now. (Who knows anyone believed that.)

2. That he believe Assad did the gassing because he believe the rebels don't have the rocket capabilities (circumstantial)

3. That it is important that America help maintain "international norm." (What, like spying on everyone?)

Anyway, if you believe him, he claim he has no intent to overthrow Assad, and that any strike, if any, is purely sending a message to Assad as a response to the gassing, and that it would not lead to actual armed forces being sent in and fight. He just wants a warningshot.

Take it or leave it, but this is what Obama is stating at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/.


The way I see it, Obama is regretting the "red line" he said before, and is forced to make a symbolic attack to save face. He should never do that, let Israel talk about red lines.


Edit: I wish Obama didn't mention Geneva... America lost the right to mention that ever since waterboarding.

.......What....

Rebels have no rocket weaponry <__<

[Haak]

I'm more likely to believe that Assad did actually use those chemical weapons and I don't have qualms about humanitarian intervention...provided that they can actually do it right.

But so far I haven't seen any convincing after-war plans and what they intend to do if the Syrian regime is ousted, so it's just impossible to support intervention at the moment.

Plus it needs to be UN approved. I can't support any intervention if it isn't at least approved by the UN.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Why Russia, Iran and China are standing by the regime

When I was asking for answers, CNN gives me some.

The most troubling of all is Russia, especially what Anna Neistat said about Putin's existential fear for his own survival and the survival of his own regime.

[AnimeFan188]

Does Obama need congressional approval to bomb Syria?:

"If President Barack Obama chooses to unilaterally launch a military attack against
Syria in retaliation for the government's alleged use of chemical weapons against
civilians last week, he is certain to face criticism that he's overstepping his executive
authority.

The president has already run up against resistance from some members of Congress,
who argue that under the 1973 War Powers Resolution and the U.S. Constitution he
must seek the body’s full approval before taking military action against the country.

The disagreement is part of a larger and thorny constitutional and legal argument over
how far Congress can go to check the chief executive's war powers and what types of
military actions constitute war."


"Interestingly, Obama himself made a similar argument while on the campaign trail six
years ago. He told the Boston Globe in 2007 that no president can use military force
absent an “actual or imminent threat to the nation” without first getting Congress' approval.
(Vice President Joe Biden, for his part, vowed to impeach President George W. Bush in 2007
if he bombed Iran without first getting approval from Congress.)"

See:

http://news.yahoo.com/does-obama-nee...174613463.html

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

.......What....

Rebels have no rocket weaponry <__<

Rocket artillery they mean, stuff like Katyushas.

[Haak]

Commons vote against Syrian action:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

[Badkarma 1]

The Brits have said "No" to joining the US in strikin Syria.
Lets see if Zippy has the stones to go on his own!

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Badkarma 1

The Brits have said "No" to joining the US in strikin Syria.
Lets see if Zippy has the stones to go on his own!

wasn't it the Brits and Frenchies who started beating the war drum. Now the Brits are saying they are staying home?

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Now the Brits are saying they are staying home?

Government =/= Parliament

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Rocket artillery they mean, stuff like Katyushas.

It's not as if Katyushas are highly complex stuff like Iskanders....You saw the pics of what they claim are chemical rockets?

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

wasn't it the Brits and Frenchies who started beating the war drum. Now the Brits are saying they are staying home?

This.

So far, they were the most vocal about an intervention. This result at the Commons is close to a motion of non-confidence towards David Cameron and we can start guessing what will happen next.

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

This result at the Commons is basically a motion of non-confidence towards David Cameron and we can start guessing what will happen next.

That's stretching things a bit. Opposing a single policy is not opposing everything the Prime Minister or the Cabinet is doing.

[Ithekro]

As far as I can tell, no President (in office) has acknowledged the 1973 War Powers Resolution as it conflicts with their powers under the Constitution. That and Nixon vetoed it and it was overturned anyway.

[ganbaru]

Boehner Seeks Answers from President Obama on Syria
http://www.speaker.gov/press-release...nt-obama-syria

•What standard did the Administration use to determine that this scope of chemical weapons use warrants potential military action?
•Does the Administration consider such a response to be precedent-setting, should further humanitarian atrocities occur?
•What result is the Administration seeking from its response?
•What is the intended effect of the potential military strikes?
•If potential strikes do not have the intended effect, will further strikes be conducted?
•Would the sole purpose of a potential strike be to send a warning to the Assad regime about the use of chemical weapons? Or would a potential strike be intended to help shift the security momentum away from the regime and toward the opposition?
•If it remains unclear whether the strikes compel the Assad regime to renounce and stop the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, or if President Assad escalates their usage, will the Administration contemplate escalatory military action?
•Will your Administration conduct strikes if chemical weapons are utilized on a smaller scale?
•Would you consider using the United States military to respond to situations or scenarios that do not directly involve the use or transfer of chemical weapons?
•Assuming the targets of potential military strikes are restricted to the Assad inner circle and military leadership, does the Administration have contingency plans in case the strikes disrupt or throw into confusion the command and control of the regime’s weapons stocks?
•Does the Administration have contingency plans if the momentum does shift away from the regime but toward terrorist organizations fighting to gain and maintain control of territory?
•Does the Administration have contingency plans to deter or respond should Assad retaliate against U.S. interests or allies in the region?
•Does the Administration have contingency plans should the strikes implicate foreign power interests, such as Iran or Russia?
•Does the Administration intend to submit a supplemental appropriations request to Congress, should the scope and duration of the potential military strikes exceed the initial planning?