US warships near Syrian waters

[gaggedLouise]

So, if we can get Peter Sellers to become the Syrian head of state... *Hopes at least one other person gets the reference*

Or jump on the missile?

"Gentlemen, you can't fight here. This is the War Room!" 

[Callie Del Noire]

Back then, the U.S. had hell of a lot more money, a racing industry at home and a more powerful executive arm than today.

Yes.. more vibrant economy.. not just a predominantly a white collar/service one like today.

No.. we don't have the racing industrial base anymore. Hell we don't even make nails here anymore.

No.. the Imperial Presidency is very much alive and well sadly. I'd say the Presidency is more powerful than anytime in US history. The president wouldn't have gotten away with some of the things that the White House has done since the 80s. I'd say the balance of power between the three arms of the Federal Government is weaker than it's been in a long long time.

I found this on Slate and rather interesting.

http://mobile.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2013/08/barack_obama_shouldn_t_bomb_syria_the_good_option_is_to_do_nothing.html

Sadly I agree.. at the MOMENT, bombing isn't a good option. Why? Not for JUST the reasons listed but for some more. Like the lack of intel. We don't know where to hit, who to keep in place and who to take out in the military? Why? Because since the Bush I presidency Electronic Intel has been primary in the community since it cost less, took less time and was 'easier to collect'.

The problem is .. Human Intelligence takes time.. and well. we've burned too many bridges over the years. Politically speaking.. our capital in the region has been spent since the post 9/11 events.

[Cyrano Johnson]

The US does, incidentally, claim to have intercepted communications between Syrian commanders related to the attack.

[elone]

I read the above cited link that US intercepted communications between Syrian commanders and could not find mention of that in the article. Could you point that out? Maybe I missed it.

My understanding is that the UN has not yet decided who is to blame for the use of chemical weapons or what type were used. Of course, only the government of Syria has them so it seems like a no brainer, unless the rebels have usurped them from stockpiles somewhere.

I know that chemical weapons are an abomination to everyone, but when we are talking about a few hundred deaths when up to 100k have died in this conflict, it seems overblown. It is apparently ok to bomb and shoot civilians but not to use other weapons.

And why is it always the responsibility of the United States to come in and send in the bombs/missiles for retaliation for said events? It only further inflames the region against us, making us more of a target to terrorists (and I hate that overused word). We all know that the Syrians fighting the Syrian government will turn on us in a minute.

[Cyrano Johnson]

I read the above cited link that US intercepted communications between Syrian commanders and could not find mention of that in the article. Could you point that out? Maybe I missed it.

It's in the accompanying video.

[Cyrano Johnson]

(Also, there has been an unprecedented statement from Bashar al-Assad*!)

* NB: Not really. It's an Onion article.

[elone]

The US does, incidentally, claim to have intercepted communications between Syrian commanders related to the attack.

From what I understand, this was an intercepted message from a Syrian commander about the use of chemical weapons. It seems, and I may be wrong, that this information came from Israeli intelligence. Like they don't have a hand in the pie. Anyway, before we go on a hunt for WMD's maybe we should get some real facts. The last time we listened to our intelligence community we invaded Iraq looking for non existent weapons. Personally, I don't trust our government to report the truth, and have even less trust in the Israeli's to do the same.

[Vekseid]

Back then, the U.S. had hell of a lot more money, a racing industry at home and a more powerful executive arm than today.

The estimated amount needed for Afghanistan in 2003-2004 was in the $30 billion range IIRC. $30 billion to complete road-building projects (which were immensely popular with the locals), mine-clearing, and so on, then gtfo.

We certainly had the economic capacity to do that. It just never got budgeted.

[ShadowFox89]

We certainly had the economic capacity to do that. It just never got budgeted.

Story of the US in the 2000's.

[Callie Del Noire]

From what I understand, this was an intercepted message from a Syrian commander about the use of chemical weapons. It seems, and I may be wrong, that this information came from Israeli intelligence. Like they don't have a hand in the pie. Anyway, before we go on a hunt for WMD's maybe we should get some real facts. The last time we listened to our intelligence community we invaded Iraq looking for non existent weapons. Personally, I don't trust our government to report the truth, and have even less trust in the Israeli's to do the same.

If you require an uninvolved to be your sources.. you're never going to get anything done. Point out someone in the region that DOESN'T have an agenda and I'll show you a liar.

Switzerland is a bit far away. 

[Cyrano Johnson]

The last time we listened to our intelligence community we invaded Iraq looking for non existent weapons.

Again, I'd be wary of comparisons to the Bush era, which was pretty singular as a period of extreme White House misrule. The so-called "intelligence failures" surrounding Iraq happened because the consumers of the intel interfered with the process of gathering and interpreting intel, making it specifically known what they wanted to hear and demanding that the intelligence community feed it back to them, even going to the lengths of "burning" one of their own covert agents and declaring her "fair game" because she would not play along. This was Cheney's Office of Special Plans (paralleled in similar measures by the Blair government in Britain), and the driving motivation to invade Iraq came well before any of the "intel."

That was a pretty specific kind of abuse of the intel process and, whatever the current White House's other faults, there is no reason that I know of to suspect they've replicated it or are pursuing some agenda to invade Syria. I think the air-raid default is wrong and Yglesias as linked above is largely right, but Obama is not Dubya by any stretch of the imagination.

[gaggedLouise]

This one just entered the news flow and it's a seriously troubling one. A BBC team reporting from Syria came by a school a short time (at most a day or two, it seems) after the playground had been hit by a number of flame bombs, with some kind of napalm-like substance. Many people killed, mostly kids and teenagers. Eyewitnesses all around say the bombs were dropped from a fighter jet, which would definitely link it to the government: none of the opposition militia have fighter aircraft.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

(video, and very disturbing)

[Florence]

Its easy to jump into a fervor over that video, and I can't help but feel its all too convenient. A shocking video like that coming about just when our governments need the public support for this military action.

That said, politics can't change how horrific and disturbing that is. Whoever did that, Assad or anyone else, certainly deserves to pay for it. I just hope whatever fury is rained down over that is rained down on the guilty party.

[Neysha]

Well it seems that even France is holding off on the talks of striking Syria, though it'll wait until Wednesday until we know for sure. I'd really hope the US doesn't go it alone, or at least if it does so, with some Congressional mandated legitimacy backing it up. Since France is waiting until at least Wednesday, it seems like the perfect time for Obama to listen to the wishes of 79% of his constituents and have Congress vote on the military action.

[Dashenka]

Where is Israel? They always feel so important in the Middle East and want to police the whole area. They commit crimes against humanity by the fleet so what's keeping them now from doing something about Syria?

With the UK already out, NATO is not going to start a combined effort so might as well take it to the countries that want to do something and do it quick.

[Neysha]

Where is Israel? They always feel so important in the Middle East and want to police the whole area. They commit crimes against humanity by the fleet so what's keeping them now from doing something about Syria?

With the UK already out, NATO is not going to start a combined effort so might as well take it to the countries that want to do something and do it quick.

Israel is staying out because they have no interests in Syria beyond not wanting it to spillover to their lands and any broad intervention on their behalf wouldn't improve things in the least for them.

It's similar for the Arab League and Turkey also being quiet on direct military action. They don't want to incur the wrath of a desperate Assad whose allegedly willing to use chemical weapons as well as magnify the conflict anymore, since the destabilizing effects of the fighting, refugees and other elements of the Syrian Civil War could negatively impact those countries as well.

[Dashenka]

So they're cowards? Nothing new there :)

[Hades]

I'm not sure if I would call it cowardly or not.  More a recognition that things in Egypt are hanging by a thread as far as their long-standing treaty with that country is concerned.  I doubt that even the most hawkish members of the Israeli parliment is eager to have to deal with situations on their southern and northern borders at the same time.

[Neysha]

So they're cowards? Nothing new there :)

No more or less cowardly then anyone else generally speaking, Russia included.

There is absolutely no way Israeli intervention can improve the situation... even theoretically.

Therefore I would label it being 'pragmatic' and even 'smart.'

[Florence]

Aye, to say its being 'cowardly' is a bit of an oversimplification.

This is a touchy subject and I don't think anyone wants to rush into things half-cocked.

Like the Bard put it, "The better part of valour is discretion."

[Dashenka]

Just not a big fan of Israel's mentality towards the world and the world's mentality towards Israel.


On a more serious and on topic note.

I think something should be done in Syria but I'm not sure what. Just overthrowing the Assad regime is too simple and there needs to be a plan on what to do next. With the rebels now armed and all, they could easily start another riot on the first next government they don't like. What Syria (and the whole middle east) need, is stability and I'm just not convinced that an intervention in Syria will give that.

So two sides really. One the immediate threat to the Syrian citizens and two, the long term stability of the country.

[Callie Del Noire]

Just not a big fan of Israel's mentality towards the world and the world's mentality towards Israel.


On a more serious and on topic note.

I think something should be done in Syria but I'm not sure what. Just overthrowing the Assad regime is too simple and there needs to be a plan on what to do next. With the rebels now armed and all, they could easily start another riot on the first next government they don't like. What Syria (and the whole middle east) need, is stability and I'm just not convinced that an intervention in Syria will give that.

So two sides really. One the immediate threat to the Syrian citizens and two, the long term stability of the country.

hence the néed for UNITED NATIONS intervention.  Put EVERYONE at a negotiation table, offer Assad a chance to use his Swiss accounts and 'retire' to a suitable country of his choice

[Dashenka]

Yes but with the UK and Russia and China out, that's still a long way off. So maybe for once, screw the UN?

[Callie Del Noire]

Yes but with the UK and Russia and China out, that's still a long way off. So maybe for once, screw the UN?

We did that before remember. Iraq, Afganistan?  These names ring a bell?

[Dashenka]

They sound vaguely familiar.

But a lot of countries who didn't participate in the initial 'war' in Iraq and Afghanistan did help in the aftermath. I'm not sure what the reason behind that was.

France also seems willing, and with Kerry's statement just now, I think it's a matter of time before something is being done.