Syria - hype or war?

[Bolton Strid]

I think we should use aggressive military action to severely punish the Assad regime for using chemical weapons,

Whoa, whoa, whoa there - what you mean, "we" Kemo Sabe? There has not been one credible shred of evidence of any sort that has definitively proven who did what to whom, if anything. You cannot, must not, take any proclamations from anyone in the O-regime, congress creatures or the sycophant media complex at face value. EVER. There's some sort of depraved political motive at play, that much is certain. But what it could be isn't clearly apparent. Yet. Besides, nothing short of going after them with a policy of full-scale slaughter & destruction would make a desired impression upon anyone in that region. There's a resilient culture of warfare there stretching back thousands of years that would take more than some cruise missiles to pacify. No, we stay far, far away from this one. Too many tripwires.

[Beiruty]

Wow I'm at James Coney Island they have CCN on.

Barbara Boxer as a hawk. John Kerry as a hawk.

It's kind of some alternate universe.

What is also interesting most of the anti war anti Bush Facebook friends are staying anti war.

They are not following Obama down this road. Most say things like don't bomb Syria bomb Monsanto.

We just need to get Hilliary to commit to this war like she did with Iraq.

Some thoughts:

Sunni - conservative Muslims. Think Osama.

Shia - much more secular, moderate.

Somehow I think because of Iran - Shia and Saudi Arabia - Sunni we have gotten on the wrong side.

Assad is Shia, the rebels are Sunni like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

There is an outfit called Wahabi, they are the most intolerant, they are Sunni.

I would hate to see our guys dieing for our future killers.

My two cents. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

You are wrong about Shia and Sunnis and who is moderate and who is not.

Have you all forget the Beirut Bombing of the US Marines barracks in 1982 that left 250+ US soldier dead? Who was the responsible?
Have you all forget the Beirut Bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut? Who was the responsible?
How about the US citizens that were taken hostages in Beirut? Who did that?

When talking about who is moderate in Sunnis and who is not? The extremists are sliver small portions of the nation. In Shia, the militancy is embedded in the culture, the culture of a minority that wants to rule the Majority (sunnis) at any cost.

[bagman45]

So get on the stick and email Cruz, Cornyn, and any other Senator you care to contact to tell the to KEEP US OUT OF SYRIA. NOT our civil war!! I've been badgering them for weeks on this....

[mamabearCali]

emailed my congresscritters. We should stay as far from Syria as we can. This is a deathtrap for us. No more sifting sand.

[mamabearCali]

TAM for POTUS!

Amen....can we draft you?

[philip964]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013 ... an-village" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rebels attack Christian village reports a nun from a convent in the village.

The rebels would be the side we would be helping under the current request from the President.

At the end the article talks about the Sunnis and Shias and which side is which.

Regarding a previous comment of mine regarding Shias and Sunni, and a previous comment on the Beruit bombing, I will follow with this comment: the Beruit bombing of the marines was carried out by Shias, on orders from the government of Iran who provided the explosives.
from Wikipedia " In his memoir, General Colin Powell (at the time an assistant to Caspar Weinberger) noted, as Colonel Geraghty already had projected, that "When the shells started falling on the Shiites, they assumed the American ‘referee’ had taken sides." Some analysts subsequently criticized the decision to have U.S. warships shell Druze and Syrian forces. They claim that this action forced a shift in the previously neutral U.S. forces by convincing local Lebanese Muslims that the U.S. had taken the Christian side."

This article at the top, however, backs up my previous statement that the Shias are more tolerant than the Sunnis.

[TexasGal]

We need to stay out of Syria IMHO. There is no doubt the act of gassing children in their sleep is heinous, but any action we take begs the loud "then what?--to what effect?" questions which have no good answers so far. It would be great if America had endless power, soldiers, and money, to right all the wrongs in the world all by ourselves, but we just don't and it's time we faced it. This needs to be a UN response not us acting pretty much alone. Our President claiming he can thumb his nose at the world and our congress to do what "he has the power to decide" has hit a wall on this one. It's an act of war to bomb Syria. People just don't want any more war. We are tired. Our troups are killing themselves at a rate greater than the enemy is. Ever notice when the news story covers a dead soldier's return, it is always noted he was killed by a roadside bomb, etc? Never that he/she killed themselves out of battle fatigue and depression. That is kept quiet. For the sake or our own children whose fathers are sent to war, we need to just say no to this one.

[Dadtodabone]

Wow I'm at James Coney Island they have CCN on.

Barbara Boxer as a hawk. John Kerry as a hawk.

It's kind of some alternate universe.

What is also interesting most of the anti war anti Bush Facebook friends are staying anti war.

They are not following Obama down this road. Most say things like don't bomb Syria bomb Monsanto.

We just need to get Hilliary to commit to this war like she did with Iraq.

Some thoughts:

Sunni - conservative Muslims. Think Osama.

Shia - much more secular, moderate.

Somehow I think because of Iran - Shia and Saudi Arabia - Sunni we have gotten on the wrong side.

Assad is Shia, the rebels are Sunni like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

There is an outfit called Wahabi, they are the most intolerant, they are Sunni.

I would hate to see our guys dieing for our future killers.

My two cents. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

You are wrong about Shia and Sunnis and who is moderate and who is not.

Have you all forget the Beirut Bombing of the US Marines barracks in 1982 that left 250+ US soldier dead? Who was the responsible?
Have you all forget the Beirut Bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut? Who was the responsible?
How about the US citizens that were taken hostages in Beirut? Who did that?

When talking about who is moderate in Sunnis and who is not? The extremists are sliver small portions of the nation. In Shia, the militancy is embedded in the culture, the culture of a minority that wants to rule the Majority (sunnis) at any cost.

To illustrate Beiruty's statement;
Iran, majority Shia
Iraq, majority Shia
And stating that Assad is Shia is disingenuous at best. Assad is a Alawite Ba'athist piece of garbage. He, as did his father before him and fellow Ba'athist piece of garbage Saddam Hussein, uses terror and oppression to rule. Alawis are Shia, as snake handling, old line, regular Baptists and Catholics are both Christian.
Militancy is the breath of life to Alawite Shias, they've been a minority sect since the 8th century and often suffered cruelly under various caliphates as well as the Ottomans. That they have risen to power through the Assad's usurpation of the Syrian state and the socialist, nationalist Ba'ath rhetoric is seen by them as their "turn at bat".
Yes, the majority of Sunni's are moderate in their beliefs and generally all around nice people. The problem of Sunni identity is one of numbers. I've read articles claim that "Only 10% of Sunnis are radicalized", that's 10% of 1.5 BILLION people. 150,000,000 radicalized folks that out number the combine militaries of the entire world. And Sunni radicalism can be particularly virulent. Exhibit; the Saudi exportation of Wahhabism.
Wahhabis, and their lesser known fellows, Salafis and all who follow "ahl al-hadith" are fundamentalists with a capital F. They are considered ultra-conservative and reject traditional Islamic legal scholarship and any moderating philosophy as unnecessary innovation, and will kill you if you disagree.
Wahhabism and the ibn Saud have been partners since the 18th century and Wahhabism dominates the Arabian Peninsula. The Saudi royals have financed the growth of Wahhabism to the tune of $90 billion dollars in the last 50 years. There are Wahhabi madrassas everywhere,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... assas.html
Don't forget that Arab religious students are called Talib, which morphed in to Taliban in Pashto and Urdu.

[Beiruty]

And for the record, wahabisits assassinated my beloved moderate religious leader in 1995 and in Beirut, Lebanon. Why? because our leader never stopped a day or night refuting and revealing the danger of the extremists and deviants wahabists.

[The Annoyed Man]

May I post a link to this on another website?

Sure, if you think it will do any good. It probably won't. Most people who remain convinced that Obama is a great leader are in a denial so deep their minds cannot be changed. We just have to wait for one of two things to happen to them in order to change them: 1) they get so badly and criminally ravaged by somebody that they become conservative when they find out that their liberal politics prevent them from doing anything about it; or 2) they die off.

[The Annoyed Man]

TAM for POTUS!

Amen....can we draft you?

You don't want me. I probably smoked as much dope as Bill and Barry combined back in the day.

Further complicating matters, this post which does make some kind of sense....I don't know if it is true or not, but it is worth reading: http://shoebat.com/2013/08/27/evidence- ... not-assad/. The author is a former member of Muslim Brotherhood, turned peace activist, who says that MB is fighting on the side of the rebels, and he makes a compelling case for MB being the source of the gas attacks:

1. Assad is winning this civil war and has been for several months now after the rebels had initially made some gains.

2. Which side has the bigger motivation to use WMD, the less desperate or the more desperate side?

3. There is actually some video evidence to suggest that rebels might be using Sarin gas, and Chlorine gas.

This could all be a pack of lies too. The point is, WE DON'T KNOW, AND WE CANNOT KNOW!!! Neither can the administration. The absolute fact that 1,000 rebel men, women, and children were gassed is incontrovertible. Just WHO gassed them is unknowable, since both sides apparently possess WMD. Then the author finishes with:

Lying, bearing false witness, blood libel, and murder.

Yeah, that smells like the Brotherhood.

**UPDATE at 8:40am EST on August 31, 2013**
Associated Press reporter Dale Gavlak reports in MintPress news that firsthand accounts indicate that the Chemical weapons attack was the result of the rebels’ mishandling of them. According to Gavlak, the weapons came from Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar bin Sultan and were given to rebels who did not know what the weapons were or how to store them, nor were they trained how to use them. If these accounts are correct, the Obama administration – along with more than a handful of Republican congressmen – may be complicit in a blood libel.

**UPDATE at 4:25pm EST on September 3, 2013**
An explosive article by Yossef Bodansky was published on September 1st implies that it is possible – or even likely – based on “a growing volume of new evidence” that the August 21st Chemical attack was carried out by the rebels against themselves in order to push an agenda that would involve getting the U.S. to attack Assad. Worse than this, however, is that Bodansky makes the case for the likelihood that the Obama administration knew about the attack in advance. While Bodansky’s findings differ from those of Gavlak, both seem to reach the conclusion that the rebels were the ones responsible for the attack.

Not to mention that the rebels simply execute their prisoners: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world ... ml?hp&_r=0.

Has anyone noticed, that since Syria brewed up, nobody in the media has said bupkis about the IRS scandal, the Benghazi scandal, Immigration scandals, "assault weapons" bans, Fast & Furious, the federal persecution of Texas in the wake of the SCOTUS voting rights act decision, the looming debt ceiling crisis, etc., etc., etc., etc. EVERYTHING has been swept under the rug.

Who stands the most to gain by our getting militarily involved in Syria?

Obama. That's who.

He's counting on the country rallying behind the president in a war. But it is a war that nobody wants......least of all the men and women who will be ordered to prosecute it. But Obama is willing to prosecute it and sacrifice the national good, what little is left of our moral capital, the burden it will put on our treasury and on our taxpayers to make good for it, all for the sake of his own ambitions. I can think of another national leader just like that.....who threatens wars to take his subjects' minds off their own miseries.......

.........Kim Jong-un of North Korea........

Need I say more?

[The Annoyed Man]

Carville blames Bush: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... _iraq.html

[Purplehood]

I may be the lone dissenter here, but but I'm in the camp that we have to do something. I completely disagree with Obama on pretty much every single thing he has ever done, but I think he is heading in the right direction this time (although I think he will "limp wrist" it and not go far enough and probably make things worse).

I think we should use aggressive military action to severely punish the Assad regime for using chemical weapons, but I think we should not "put boots on the ground." We should also not have the intention of regime change as I think Al Qaeda and/or other Jihadists would seize power. I agree with this open letter's approach "to deter or destroy the Assad regime’s airpower and other conventional military means of committing atrocities against civilian non-combatants."

I think we should be very cautious about arming rebels. If we can find rebels who will fight Assad AND the Al Qaeda jihadists, then I'm for helping them...but I fear our arms falling into the hands of the radicals.

I absolutely think it is in the U.S. national interest to punish any group (government or not) that uses weapons of mass destruction to purposely kill innocent civilians...and to send a very strong warning to everyone considering using WMD in the future. If we do nothing, we are sending the message to everyone that it's open season and we should expect radicals to use WMD more often, against more targets and to kill more people.

There are also rumors that it was actually the rebels who used the chemical weapons to drag us into fighting their fight. I think we need to make absolutely sure that we are punishing the guilty party. Reference here.

This is one of those fights that we "have to fight." I'm not talking about the civil war, but the use of chemical weapons. With all that said, I am very concerned about this administration's ability to craft or execute such a policy.

I completely disagree.

There is not a single objective that is listed above that can be quantifiably defined and given to our Armed Forces as Mission Objectives.
Once again, we put our lives, our money and hardware, and our credibility on the line for a poorly-defined reward and even more international animosity.
We need to stay out of Syria. If the Syrians (I don't care which side) decide to go across any borders, then and only then we hammer them.

[VMI77]

I may be the lone dissenter here, but but I'm in the camp that we have to do something. I completely disagree with Obama on pretty much every single thing he has ever done, but I think he is heading in the right direction this time (although I think he will "limp wrist" it and not go far enough and probably make things worse).

I think we should use aggressive military action to severely punish the Assad regime for using chemical weapons, but I think we should not "put boots on the ground." We should also not have the intention of regime change as I think Al Qaeda and/or other Jihadists would seize power. I agree with this open letter's approach "to deter or destroy the Assad regime’s airpower and other conventional military means of committing atrocities against civilian non-combatants."

I think we should be very cautious about arming rebels. If we can find rebels who will fight Assad AND the Al Qaeda jihadists, then I'm for helping them...but I fear our arms falling into the hands of the radicals.

I absolutely think it is in the U.S. national interest to punish any group (government or not) that uses weapons of mass destruction to purposely kill innocent civilians...and to send a very strong warning to everyone considering using WMD in the future. If we do nothing, we are sending the message to everyone that it's open season and we should expect radicals to use WMD more often, against more targets and to kill more people.

There are also rumors that it was actually the rebels who used the chemical weapons to drag us into fighting their fight. I think we need to make absolutely sure that we are punishing the guilty party. Reference here.

This is one of those fights that we "have to fight." I'm not talking about the civil war, but the use of chemical weapons. With all that said, I am very concerned about this administration's ability to craft or execute such a policy.

I completely disagree.

There is not a single objective that is listed above that can be quantifiably defined and given to our Armed Forces as Mission Objectives.
Once again, we put our lives, our money and hardware, and our credibility on the line for a poorly-defined reward and even more international animosity.
We need to stay out of Syria. If the Syrians (I don't care which side) decide to go across any borders, then and only then we hammer them.

That OK...as Senator Cruz said, we can be Al Qaeda's air force.

[Superman]

There is not a single objective that is listed above that can be quantifiably defined and given to our Armed Forces as Mission Objectives. ...

Obviously, everyone is not really reading what I wrote or the links I provided.

I said that I agree with the open letter I linked to that included the objective: "to deter or destroy the Assad regime’s airpower and other conventional military means of committing atrocities against civilian non-combatants."

I think former U.S. Gen. Jack Keane makes a compelling case for decisively taking out Syria's air force and air capabilities (reference video). He said:

The most vulnerable military capability he has, Bret, is his air power. There’s 20 air fields, only six of them are primary. He only has about 100 aircraft. We can take down those air fields, the aircraft on them. Also, the munitions, the fuel, the warehouses that the Iranians and Russians are using to resupply them, we can do all of that. That would be a significant degradation of his capability, and something he isn’t bargaining for. He is not expecting to lose his air power over the use of chemical weapons.

Granted, Russia has now said they will resupply then with whatever we destroy, but that's another issue.

As for those asking "who are we to punish?

First, I'll refer back to President Reagan's actions when Libya engaged in terrorism back in the mid-1980's. Wisely, he did not overreach by launching a policy of regime change (leave it to Obama to do that bonehead move), instead he launched a bombing campaign to severely punish Khaddafi. Plenty of historical info on that here. There is even a really good article on that subject as it relates to us now here: '86 Attack on Libya: A Template for U.S. Action Now.

And second, what ever happened to us being a "shining city on a hill"? When this evil and corrupt world will not stand up for what is right, who else will (or can) if we don't? We have lost our way as a nation. We have become complacent and "tolerant" of way too many evils. The President is right when he says that it is not just his red line, but it was the worlds red line. The problem is that the Islamists have successfully made the world fear them, so much so that the world would rather take the easy way out since it doesn't directly and immediately affect them. But just like a parent who has to discipline their child, if you do not follow through with your "red lines", then they will grow up to be uncontrollable teenagers that will only cause you more problems...and then on to lawless adults that still act like children.

Anyone who thinks the use of chemical weapons (again, by either the government or the "rebels") in some civil war in a far off country won't affect us is a fool. I'll say it again...if we do nothing, we should expect them to use WMD more often, against more targets and to kill more people.