He does.... It seems that the US has set themselves up for an epic failure in this situation. Obama does not have approval of Congress with even Nancy Pelosi having skepticism on the matter. Britian will not have our backs and neither will Germany. The only other nations that seem to have our backs in this are Saudi Arabia, Qatar and France. Apparently the French military have said they are ready to go if their president says go. What this is currently is a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran and Syria is just a pawn in all of this. I also can't imagine the Israelis are too thrilled with this because the Iranians have said they are going to "reign fire on Israel" if the US attacks Syria. Obviously Tehran tends to bullshit quite a bit but the US attacking Syria gives Khameni exactly the excuse he needs to attack Israel. Throw in Iran supports Hezbollah which is based in Lebanon so you'll have missles coming at Israel from Lebanon as well. “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Senator Obama, 2007 , yet he is going to do exactly that. Essentially we're fucked if we do and fucked if we don't. There is no good solution as we obviously can't support Assad as that'll piss off our oil overlords and state sponsor #1 of Terrorism the Saudis and we absolutely cannot go after Assad as that give Al Qaeda and upper hand.
I very much do. Off topic,but at the very least I am in daily amazement that people do not watch video of the towers falling and ask themselves how that is physically possible. Because it's not in any way. All you need is a box of Jenga. How is it that you say it's bullshit. Is it just not possible because we are the USA and just would not do that? Because we have a history of supplying chems to the mid-east. Not to mention,we created Bin Laden with our CIA ad also empowered the Taliban in the 1st place. Also,Iraq. We protected them from falling to Iran. What is it about taking out puppets that we install? Also,why has our heroin industry so exploded after we stuck out foot in Afghanistan?
Looks like USA and alliance realizes hitting Syria won't bring any good results. Yes Assad is an asshole etc but if USA strikes, Al Qaeda will benefit hugely. The thing I like is my own Prime Minister (Fascist Dicatotor Erdogan) will have a huge disappointment. I am loving it.
I'm not sure that they realize anything. I just think that the support they thought they would have drummed up was't there. They've spent the better part of 12 years making sure that the word terrorist/wmd makes everyone dance to a tune. But as stated in my last post in the article,people are on to their game and tired of it. Obama was supposed to be the most popular politician in history,and this was supposed to have more support than Iraq/9/11. Didn't quite happen that way.
Militants tell AP reporter they mishandled Saudi-supplied chemical weapons, causing accident Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com August 30, 2013 Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press journalist Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia. Image: YouTube “From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak. Rebels told Gavlak that they were not properly trained on how to handle the chemical weapons or even told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were initially supposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra. “We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” one militant named ‘J’ told Gavlak. His claims are echoed by another female fighter named ‘K’, who told Gavlak, “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.” Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of an opposition rebel, also told Gavlak, “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.” The father names the Saudi militant who provided the weapons as Abu Ayesha. According to Abdel-Moneim, the weapons exploded inside a tunnel, killing 12 rebels. “More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government,” writes Gavlak. If accurate, this story could completely derail the United States’ rush to attack Syria which has been founded on the “undeniable” justification that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack. Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News. The website on which the story originally appeared - Mint Press (which is currently down as a result of huge traffic it is attracting to the article) is a legitimate media organization based in Minnesota. The Minnesota Post did a profile on them last year. Saudi Arabia’s alleged role in providing rebels, whom they have vehemently backed at every turn, with chemical weapons, is no surprise given the revelations earlier this week that the Saudis threatened Russia with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi unless they abandoned support for the Syrian President. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Prince Bandar allegedly told Vladimir Putin, the Telegraph reports. The Obama administration is set to present its intelligence findings today in an effort prove that Assad’s forces were behind last week’s attack, despite American officials admitting to the New York Times that there is no “smoking gun” that directly links President Assad to the attack. US intelligence officials also told the Associated Press that the intelligence proving Assad’s culpability is “no slam dunk.” As we reported earlier this week, intercepted intelligence revealed that the Syrian Defense Ministry was making “panicked” phone calls to Syria’s chemical weapons department demanding answers in the hours after the attack, suggesting that it was not ordered by Assad’s forces.
Witnesses including an AP photographer claim that the Syrian Rebels used chemical weapons obtained from Saudi Arabia. http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnes...supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/
The stuff that's coming out in the media right now about Saudi Arabia handing chemical weapons to AQ-allied rebel groups is likely misinformation designed to cause confusion in US policy making at a critical junction. It's exactly what Syria's government wants leaked at this point. Here's a question for everybody. What happens if the US strikes Syrian government forces and several Russian advisers are killed in the attack?
Now, that Britain has officially backed off on attacking Syria this is just stupid. From a humanitarian perspective we should all do something, but not alone. Syria is half way around the world from us. If Europe isn't going to help clean up this mess, fuck 'em. This is their backyard not ours. Abandon the Middle East. Invest all would be Middle East and North Africa interests in the United States or other countries. If they want to trade oil with us conduct the business in a different region of the world. Enough already. I wish the United States would adopt a global strategy that isolates this region of the world. It's a shit hole that produces nothing but War, Oil and drugs. The only country, in that region, worth offering any form of aid to is Israel. And where they are sitting on the map they are all pretty much fucked anyway. Save the wasted money on this region and spend it on American Interests. Bring the troops home. Everything we do over there is hurting us. Only people that are winning are weapons suppliers and grave diggers.
Hey, I'm all for alternative news sources (and following up on their sourcing), but do you know anything about infowars? Dude behind it is completely unhinged and is rather open about his agenda. He doesn't care about the truth.
5th ship has moved into position. Looks like the decision has been made. Although EVERYONE is against it
Punt The anti-Aasad rebels themselves do not present a united front. The Syrian Democratic Union Party are at odds with al-Nursra Front, a group with ties to al-Qaeda. In addition there's also Levant, or ISLI and Ahrar Al Sham (Freeman of the Levant). These Islamists are into transnational Jihad. Pick your poision: Aasad or cross-border religious wars? The day Aasad falls, "liberated" Syria turns into a very dangerous free-for-all with many factions now fighting EACH OTHER out in the open which is potentially an even bigger mess imho. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/w...ner-of-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 I hope against hope Obama doesn't touch this mess with a 10-foot pole. And fwiw, on top of all this, the very moment a US bomb touches down, the whole "chemical weapons" issue disappears from the court of public opinion (Arab and non-Arab alike). just my 2cents
You act like the Govt hasn't been completely transparent on Syria. I mean they just laid out their proof at 3pm Friday of a Holiday weekend. What more can they do to prove this is all on the up and up?
Well apparently Jordan and Saudi Arabia are also against us getting involved citing it will only make it worse. Obama and Kerry have both said this is "a matter of national security" which means he can bypass Congress. We've also said it doesn't matter what the UN finds as we've come to our own conclusions.
The logical US response is to gather a coalition and then strike in a very limited manner against the people who used chemical weapons. Inserting ourselves into the conflict puts us on the ledger for a win or a loss and then things get really screwed up really quickly. Since the coalition is a no-go at this point the US basically should keep the strike force in the area and wait for a logical target to present itself. The cost of doing this is large but nowhere near as large as getting into a morass that we can't just step out of when it becomes painful. The next use of chemical weapons will be much less ambiguous because the world is now watching very closely. If the Syrian government uses them then the US launches unilateral air strikes designed to degrade the government's position to continue to use chemical weapons. If the rebels use them then the US launches strikes on the rebel positions associated with the faction that used them and basically takes them out of the war.
