The Syria Thread: Everything you wanted to know or say about it

[petros]

Re: Kerry Says Chemical Arms Attack in Syria Is ‘Undeniable’

Of course it was the rebels Goober. There was no question it was them. So why are we helping Saudi al Qaeda?

 

[Goober]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Way I see it, this is the Syrians' problem.

If there's international intervention, it should come from the Arab League.

Or possibly the UN.

But unilateral U.S. action? Seriously? What was the definition of "insanity" again?

Something about a head and a brick wall.

 

[petros]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Arab League is already backing al Qaeda because they are al Qaeda.

 

[Blackleaf]

Re: Kerry Says Chemical Arms Attack in Syria Is ‘Undeniable’

Britain has drafted a UN resolution seeking backing for 'all necessary measures to protect civilians" which will be put to a meeting of the four other permanent members in New York this evening 'condemning the chemical weapons attack by Assad'.

The Prime Minister also chaired the National Security Council (NSC) today, where the armed forces explained how it would use air strikes and missiles to hit the Syrian regime.

'We've always said we want the UN Security Council to live up to its responsibilities on Syria. Today they have an opportunity to do that,' Mr Cameron said.

Britain has warplanes based at RAF Akrotiri at the British Overseas Territory of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on the island of Cyprus, less than 100 miles from Syria, while the Royal Navy has several warships and a submarine with missiles on board already in the Mediterranean.

Cameron attempts to secure UN Security Council backing to take 'necessary measures to protect civilians' in Syria as he makes his case for air strikes

• Britain drafts UN resolution seeking backing for 'all necessary measures to protect civilians' to be considered this evening
• Labour demanded Coalition secure this before its MPs vote for any attack
• Diane Abbott: 'British public have seen this movie. They know how it ends'.
• British and U.S. leaders discussed military options and intelligence material
• American forces are 'ready to go' and could attack as early as tomorrow
• British and U.S. warships, submarines and aircraft are already in region
  
• Many Tory MPs are sceptical about Britain getting involved ahead of vote
  
• Newspaper poll finds that majority of public is against attacking Syria

By Martin Robinson
28 August 2013
Daily Mail

David Cameron has today asked for UN Security Council backing to take 'all necessary measures to protect civilians' in Syria as Britain took more steps towards attacking the country.

A UK draft resolution will be put to a meeting of the five permanent members in New York this evening 'condemning the chemical weapons attack by Assad'.

The Prime Minister also chaired the National Security Council (NSC) today, where the armed forces explained how it would use air strikes and missiles to hit the Syrian regime.

Crisis talks: David Cameron chaired the National Security Council at Downing Street today, which discussed plans to attack Syria after agreeing al-Assad's chemical weapons attack was unacceptable


'We've always said we want the UN Security Council to live up to its responsibilities on Syria. Today they have an opportunity to do that,' Mr Cameron said.

Decision time: David Cameron arrives at Number 10 yesterday, where he made his case for Britain to join in an attack on Syria

Foreign Secretary William Hague added this afternoon that discussions would at the United Nations 'over the coming days', but added the international community would still have a responsibility to act even if there could not be agreement at the UN.

'This is the first use of chemical warfare in the 21st century, it has to be unacceptable, we have to confront something that is a war crime, something that is a crime against humanity,' he said.

'If we don't do so then we will have to confront even bigger war crimes in the future. So we continue to look for a strong response from the international community, that is legal, that is proportionate and that is designed to deter the further and future use of chemical weapons.'

Labour has said UN backing for a military intervention is a key criterion for voting with the Government in tomorrow's Commons vote on the crisis.

Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir Nick Houghton and MI6 chief Sir John Sawers, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond and Attorney General Dominic Grieve were among those around the Cabinet table for the National Security Council at 10 Downing Street to discuss the military options.

Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir Nick Houghton

Members 'agreed unanimously that the use of chemical weapons by Assad was unacceptable - and the world should not stand by', Mr Cameron tweeted.

Earlier it was revealed he discussed plans to attack Syria with Barack Obama and said the world cannot ‘stand idly by’ as the regime uses chemical weapons on its own people.

The Prime Minister and the U.S. President agreed there was 'no doubt' Bassar al-Assad was responsible for the deaths of up to 1,200 in Damascus last week, Downing Street said today.

'It was an opportunity for the PM to hear the latest U.S. thinking on the issue and to set out the options being considered by the government', a Downing Street spokesman said this morning.

'Both leaders agreed that all the information available confirmed a chemical weapons attack had taken place.

'The PM confirmed that the government had not yet taken a decision on the specific nature of our response, but that it would be legal and specific to the chemical weapons attack.'

China, which has a permanent seat along with the US, Russia, UK and France, has also been consistent in blocking previous anti-Assad resolutions.

Summit: Head of the armed forces, General Sir Nicholas Houghton, and Defence Secretary Philip Hammond leave Downing Street, followed by a smiling Attorney General Dominic Grieve, after considering attack plans

Decision: William Hague, pictured in Downing Street, where Britain's top brass agreed unanimously that 'the world should not stand idly by' over Syria

Russia foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said military action 'will lead to the long-term destabilisation of the situation in the country and the region'.

A senior Liberal Democrat source conceded that the Government was not optimistic of securing Russian and Chinese support at the UN.

'We are not expecting a massive change of heart... but it is important to try,' the source said.

MPs have been recalled to Parliament for tomorrow to debate military action and a vote on what to do. If they agree to an attack it could be launched within days.

Britain has a RAF base in Cyprus, less than 100 miles from Syria, while the Royal Navy has several warships and a submarine with missiles on board already in the Mediterranean.

Britain has an RAF base at Akrotiri in the British Overseas Territory of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus, less than 100 miles from Syria.

US defence secretary Chuck Hagel has said his forces were ‘ready to go’ on the President's say-so and one Pentagon source admitted the bombardment could even begin tomorrow.

Four American destroyers are currently deployed in the eastern Mediterranean and equipped with long-range Tomahawk missiles that could strike Syria.

Britain has several warships in the area, including frigate HMS Montrose (above), HMS Bulwark, a helicopter carrier, another frigate and a nuclear submarine

Both countries are set to publish intelligence reports later today, based on intercepted communications and surveillance, which will set out why they are sure the chemical attack in Damascus was carried out by al-Assad's forces and not rebels.

Last night the Prime Minister made his first public case for Britain joining a retaliatory attack on the regime of tyrant Bashar al-Assad, and said the use of chemical weapons was ‘morally indefensible’.

Mr Cameron said: ‘What we have seen in Syria are appalling scenes of death and suffering because of the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.

'I don’t believe we can let that stand.’


Read more: Syria crisis: David Cameron tries to secure UN Security Council backing to take 'necessary measures' | Mail Online

 

[gore0bsessed]

Re: Kerry Says Chemical Arms Attack in Syria Is ‘Undeniable’

how about posting the link and not the entire article , spamming in a middle of a thread.

 

[Mowich]

Re: Kerry Says Chemical Arms Attack in Syria Is ‘Undeniable’

Whatever the U.S./Britain decide to do, my earnest hope is that Canada stays out of it.

 

[petros]

Re: Kerry Says Chemical Arms Attack in Syria Is ‘Undeniable’

Of course we won't.

 

[Mowich]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

I'll make the arrangements to send over a few minor league hockey teams.... They can goon-it-up with little more lost than a few teeth and stitches.

I figure they time frame would be equivalent of a weekend tourney - we ought to have this thing buttoned-up within a few days

Glad you mentioned the minor leagues.........cause our NHL guys are way too busy getting ready for the Olympics to be worried about anything else.

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: Kerry Says Chemical Arms Attack in Syria Is ‘Undeniable’

how about posting the link and not the entire article , spamming in a middle of a thread.

You've just earned yourself (and CanCon) another spam attack.

 

[petros]

Re: Kerry Says Chemical Arms Attack in Syria Is ‘Undeniable’

Britain has drafted a UN resolution seeking backing
for 'all necessary measures to protect civilians" which will be put to a
meeting of the four other permanent members in New York this evening 'condemning
the chemical weapons attack by Assad'.

When did they prove it was Assad?

 

[coldstream]

Re: Kerry Says Chemical Arms Attack in Syria Is ‘Undeniable’

Bush, the Washington Post, the NY Times all said they had incontrovertible proof that Saddam had WMD and stirred war hysteria in order to justify their attack despite the lack of corroborating evidence from the UN. Then we all saw that the Downing Street Memo clearly proved this was all part of a plan to justify Bush's war.

Today we are hearing reports that Hagel and Kerry have seen incontrovertible proof of sarin attacks. But they have failed to produce any such evidence and still have not gotten corroborating evidence from the UN. And where are the satellite photos to prove gas bearing rockets were launched from Assad's military positions??

Are people prepared for yet another war without evidence or are they going to jump into more foreign conflict. And what business is it of the US or UK to intervene in a foreign civil war?

I'm betting that the war profiteers are rubbing their hands with rapturous glee in anticipation of yet another profitable war.

I remember some of that 'proof'.. in the Iraq War. I remember Colin Powell at the UN touting the presence of 'mobile chemical labs' on trucks.. complete with pictures of these trucks with cylinders and gizmos on the back. They turned out to be hydrogen tanks, used to fill weather balloons.

I also remember that mantra "don't let a smoking gun become a mushroom cloud" ad nauseum.. when they knew Saddam had NO nuclear capability. I can't watch George W. Bush or Colin Powell or Condaleeza Rice now without thinking.. you liars.. you stinkers.. you wimps.. sabre rattling with other people's lives.

There's no doubt an attack is imminent. Obama has decided he needs no legislative approval .. although it is clearly stated in the Constitution that an act of war, as this would be, must be Declared by Congress.

He's also come up with the bizarre statement that this is a purely a punitive and exemplary act and not intended to determine the outcome of the conflict. That's ludicrous.. the only reason to conduct war is to impose a strategic political outcome. You only have to look at Iraq to realize how simplistic, short sighted and tunnel visioned that this conception can be.. as the country has devolved into chaos and U.S. has abandoned it.

The first casuality of the war is the Truth.. nothing is a better example than this.. as the Obama administration desperately tries to turn the tide of the Civil War to the rebels favour... now that they are decicively on the retreat and victory for the Assad regime appears inevitable... without Western intervention. I wonder what kind of convoluted deception and hyperbole they'll come up with this time.

You already see the generous use of outrage and pity.. especially with the images of afflicted children.. with an implicit assumption.. BUT no proof.. and no logic.. to indict with any confidence the Assad regime

And British Prime Minister David Cameron seems to be playing the role of devoted POODLE to Obama.. just as Thatcher with Bush Sr. and Blair did with Bush Jr.

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: Kerry Says Chemical Arms Attack in Syria Is ‘Undeniable’

There's no doubt an attack is imminent. Obama has decided he needs no legislative approval .. although it is clearly stated in the Constitution that an act of war, as this would be, must be approved by Congress.

Looks like YOU need a lesson in the Constitution.

It states that only Congress can declare war.

The President can order the US Military to attack whomever he darn well pleases.

 

[coldstream]

Re: Kerry Says Chemical Arms Attack in Syria Is ‘Undeniable’

Looks like YOU need a lesson in the Constitution.

It states that only Congress can declare war.

The President can order the US Military to attack whomever he darn well pleases.

That's not what the Constitution states. An attack on a sovereign country IS an Act of War. It would be deemed so if an attack was inflicted on the U.S.

The Presidents in recent years have ignored Congress and the Constitution.. and Congress has been too gutless to demand its Constitutional privilege... while the Executive Branch has claimed for itself the full and exclusive right to wage war at its own discretion.. and only by its own counsel.

These semantic gymnastics, this sophistry, of the difference between a 'war' and 'military exercise' (or whatever) is just that.. it is hypocrisy.. based on LIES.

AND i expect the BLOWBACK.. the Law of Unintended Consequences to appear here.. in a situation of Global brinksmanship that cannot be localized.

 

[Highball]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Give them all the weapons they need and seal off the borders. Let them kill each other off.

 

[gore0bsessed]

Re: Kerry Says Chemical Arms Attack in Syria Is ‘Undeniable’

When did they prove it was Assad?

never

 

[Nuggler]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Way I see it, this is the Syrians' problem.

If there's international intervention, it should come from the Arab League.

Or possibly the UN.

But unilateral U.S. action? Seriously? What was the definition of "insanity" again?

same as it was before they went into Iraq...............:-(

Any way the people can stop them from going down this road ?

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Well... if I had to guess... it will be a strike on the same lines as the bombing of Libya in the late 80's only with cruise missiles. A punishment strike.

 

[damngrumpy]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

There are some serious issues to deal with here. One there is no nice guys
on either side. We have the government which does allow Muslims, Christians
and Jews to live in the same country. On the other side we have the fanatics
and terror groups mixed in with the ordinary folks. This is a civil war and it
won't end for a while. The trouble is if we get rid of the government the one coming
in is worse than what they have.
What I am really worried about is, this might be the training ground for a strike on Iran
and the build up is always the same. See what the Russians do, or the Chinese.
And don't forget if we strike them, Iran is going to react giving licence to take measures
against them This is a case where the west should mind its own business and leave
well enough alone. When will we stop bleading ourselves dry to get involved in other
peoples business?

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: Kerry Says Chemical Arms Attack in Syria Is ‘Undeniable’

That's not what the Constitution states. An attack on a sovereign country IS an Act of War. It would be deemed so if an attack was inflicted on the U.S.

The Presidents in recent years have ignored Congress and the Constitution.. and Congress has been too gutless to demand its Constitutional privilege... while the Executive Branch has claimed for itself the full and exclusive right to wage war at its own discretion.. and only by its own counsel.

These semantic gymnastics, this sophistry, of the difference between a 'war' and 'military exercise' (or whatever) is just that.. it is hypocrisy.. based on LIES.

AND i expect the BLOWBACK.. the Law of Unintended Consequences to appear here.. in a situation of Global brinksmanship that cannot be localized.

The Constitution does not say the President cannot order a military strike or order troops into another nation.


And it is not in recent years. The US President has ordered many military expeditions and interventions since the creation of the US. Central America, China, Philippines... the list goes on and on.

Obama is well within his right to attack Syria. No war needs to be declared. He does not need the approval of the US Congress.

 

[B00Mer]

Re: Kerry Says Chemical Arms Attack in Syria Is ‘Undeniable’

Whatever the U.S./Britain decide to do, my earnest hope is that Canada stays out of it.

Ditto...!!!! :canada: