Come on, number one of importance to people like Gingrich is to oppose anything President Obama does, that is all. If Bush were president and proposing even bigger involvement in Syria... Gingrich would be selling it!
Poll: 60% of Americans Opposed to Syria Attack, Just 9% Support it
- Thread starter blackascoal
- Start date
Come on, number one of importance to people like Gingrich is to oppose anything President Obama does, that is all. If Bush were president and proposing even bigger involvement in Syria... Gingrich would be selling it!
I have done a lot of thinking about attacking Syria, I am opposed unless there is more conclusive evidence that that one party or another used chemical weapons. Then, I am not sure I would support doing something, but I would feel better. It may be that such evidence exists... and the public is not made aware of it for security reasons.
Id support doing something about chemical weapons, if we felt sure we could disable the ability of someone who would use chemical weapons from doing so without great risk of human life.
Id support doing something about chemical weapons, if we felt sure we could disable the ability of someone who would use chemical weapons from doing so without great risk of human life.
cawacko
Well-known member
You have a conservative that supports your position and you're still not happy.
Attacking Syria, US Bolsters al-Qaeda-Dominated Rebels
The administration is trying to present the idea that this new war is completely distinct from the ongoing Syrian war, even though they’re both in the exact same place and against the same government, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Indeed, this idea that the US doesn’t expect their attacks to do anything, and is just a military operation with no military goals and an agenda of just really sticking it to Assad, is an excuse that they’ve been forced into simply to avoid admitting that the war risks turning Syria into a foreign-dominated Islamist caliphate with al-Qaeda at the helm.
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/27/attacking-syria-us-bolsters-al-qaeda-dominated-rebels/
The administration is trying to present the idea that this new war is completely distinct from the ongoing Syrian war, even though they’re both in the exact same place and against the same government, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Indeed, this idea that the US doesn’t expect their attacks to do anything, and is just a military operation with no military goals and an agenda of just really sticking it to Assad, is an excuse that they’ve been forced into simply to avoid admitting that the war risks turning Syria into a foreign-dominated Islamist caliphate with al-Qaeda at the helm.
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/27/attacking-syria-us-bolsters-al-qaeda-dominated-rebels/
In Rush to Strike Syria, U.S. Tried to Derail U.N. Probe
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2013/08/27/in-rush-to-strike-syria-u-s-tried-to-derail-u-n-probe/
Kerry asserted Monday that he had warned Syrian Foreign Minister Moallem last Thursday that Syria had to give the UN team immediate access to the site and stop the shelling there, which he said was “systematically destroying evidence”. He called the Syria-U.N. deal to allow investigators unrestricted access “too late to be credible”.
After the deal was announced on Sunday, however, Kerry pushed Ban in a phone call to call off the investigation completely.
The Wall Street Journal reported the pressure on Ban without mentioning Kerry by name. It said unnamed “US officials” had told the secretary-general that it was “no longer safe for the inspectors to remain in Syria and that their mission was pointless.”
But Ban, who has generally been regarded as a pliable instrument of US policy, refused to withdraw the UN team and instead “stood firm on principle”, the Journal reported. He was said to have ordered the UN inspectors to “continue their work”.
The Journal said “US officials” also told the secretary-general that the United States “didn’t think the inspectors would be able to collect viable evidence due to the passage of time and damage from subsequent shelling.”
The State Department spokesperson, Marie Harf, confirmed to reporters that Kerry had spoken with Ban over the weekend. She also confirmed the gist of the US position on the investigation. “We believe that it’s been too long and there’s been too much destruction of the area for the investigation to be credible,” she said.
That claim echoed a statement by an unnamed “senior official” to the Washington Post Sunday that the evidence had been “significantly corrupted” by the regime’s shelling of the area.
“[W]e don’t at this point have confidence that the UN can conduct a credible inquiry into what happened,” said Harf, “We are concerned that the Syrian regime will use this as a delay tactic to continue shelling and destroying evidence in the area.”
Harf did not explain, however, how the Syrian agreement to a ceasefire and unimpeded access to the area of the alleged chemical weapons attack could represent a continuation in “shelling and destroying evidence”.
Despite the US effort to portray the Syrian government policy as one of “delay”, the formal request from the United Nations for access to the site did not go to the Syrian government until Angela Kane, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, arrived in Damascus on Saturday, as Ban’s spokesman, Farhan Haq, conceded in a briefing in New York Tuesday.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said in a press conference Tuesday that Syria had not been asked by the United Nations for access to the East Ghouta area until Kane presented it on Saturday. Syria agreed to provide access and to a ceasefire the following day.
Haq sharply disagreed with the argument made by Kerry and the State Department that it was too late to obtain evidence of the nature of the Aug. 21 incident.
“Sarin can be detected for up to months after its use,” he said.
Specialists on chemical weapons also suggested in interviews with IPS that the UN investigating team, under a highly regarded Swedish specialist Ake Sellstom and including several experts borrowed from the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, should be able to either confirm or disprove the charge of an attack with nerve or another chemical weapon within a matter of days.
Ralph Trapp, a consultant on proliferation of chemical and biological weapons, said he was “reasonably confident” that the UN team could clarify what had happened.
“They can definitely answer the question [of] whether there was a chemical attack, and they can tell which chemical was used,” he said, by collecting samples from blood, urine and hair of victims. There was even “some chance” of finding chemical residue from ammunition pieces or craters where they landed.
Trapp said it would take “several days” to complete an analysis.
Steve Johnson, who runs a program in chemical, biological and radiological weapons forensics at Cranfield University in the United Kingdom, said that by the end of the week the UN might be able to answer whether “people died of a nerve agent.”
Johnson said the team, if pushed, could produce “some kind of view” on that issue within 24 to 48 hours.
Dan Kastesza, a 20-year veteran of the US Army Chemical Corps and a former adviser to the White House on chemical and biological weapons proliferation, told IPS the team will not be looking for traces of the nerve gas sarin in blood samples but rather chemicals produced when sarin degrades.
But Kastesza said that once samples arrive at laboratories, specialists could make a determination “in a day or two” about whether a nerve agent or other chemical weapons had been used.
The real reason for the Obama administration’s hostility toward the UN investigation appears to be the fear that the Syrian government’s decision to allow the team access to the area indicates that it knows that UN investigators will not find evidence of a nerve gas attack.
The administration’s effort to discredit the investigation recalls the George W. Bush administration’s rejection of the position of UN inspectors in 2002 and 2003 after they found no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the administration’s refusal to give inspectors more time to fully rule out the existence of an active Iraqi WMD program.
In both cases, the administration had made up its mind to go to war and wanted no information that could contradict that policy to arise
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2013/08/27/in-rush-to-strike-syria-u-s-tried-to-derail-u-n-probe/
Kerry asserted Monday that he had warned Syrian Foreign Minister Moallem last Thursday that Syria had to give the UN team immediate access to the site and stop the shelling there, which he said was “systematically destroying evidence”. He called the Syria-U.N. deal to allow investigators unrestricted access “too late to be credible”.
After the deal was announced on Sunday, however, Kerry pushed Ban in a phone call to call off the investigation completely.
The Wall Street Journal reported the pressure on Ban without mentioning Kerry by name. It said unnamed “US officials” had told the secretary-general that it was “no longer safe for the inspectors to remain in Syria and that their mission was pointless.”
But Ban, who has generally been regarded as a pliable instrument of US policy, refused to withdraw the UN team and instead “stood firm on principle”, the Journal reported. He was said to have ordered the UN inspectors to “continue their work”.
The Journal said “US officials” also told the secretary-general that the United States “didn’t think the inspectors would be able to collect viable evidence due to the passage of time and damage from subsequent shelling.”
The State Department spokesperson, Marie Harf, confirmed to reporters that Kerry had spoken with Ban over the weekend. She also confirmed the gist of the US position on the investigation. “We believe that it’s been too long and there’s been too much destruction of the area for the investigation to be credible,” she said.
That claim echoed a statement by an unnamed “senior official” to the Washington Post Sunday that the evidence had been “significantly corrupted” by the regime’s shelling of the area.
“[W]e don’t at this point have confidence that the UN can conduct a credible inquiry into what happened,” said Harf, “We are concerned that the Syrian regime will use this as a delay tactic to continue shelling and destroying evidence in the area.”
Harf did not explain, however, how the Syrian agreement to a ceasefire and unimpeded access to the area of the alleged chemical weapons attack could represent a continuation in “shelling and destroying evidence”.
Despite the US effort to portray the Syrian government policy as one of “delay”, the formal request from the United Nations for access to the site did not go to the Syrian government until Angela Kane, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, arrived in Damascus on Saturday, as Ban’s spokesman, Farhan Haq, conceded in a briefing in New York Tuesday.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said in a press conference Tuesday that Syria had not been asked by the United Nations for access to the East Ghouta area until Kane presented it on Saturday. Syria agreed to provide access and to a ceasefire the following day.
Haq sharply disagreed with the argument made by Kerry and the State Department that it was too late to obtain evidence of the nature of the Aug. 21 incident.
“Sarin can be detected for up to months after its use,” he said.
Specialists on chemical weapons also suggested in interviews with IPS that the UN investigating team, under a highly regarded Swedish specialist Ake Sellstom and including several experts borrowed from the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, should be able to either confirm or disprove the charge of an attack with nerve or another chemical weapon within a matter of days.
Ralph Trapp, a consultant on proliferation of chemical and biological weapons, said he was “reasonably confident” that the UN team could clarify what had happened.
“They can definitely answer the question [of] whether there was a chemical attack, and they can tell which chemical was used,” he said, by collecting samples from blood, urine and hair of victims. There was even “some chance” of finding chemical residue from ammunition pieces or craters where they landed.
Trapp said it would take “several days” to complete an analysis.
Steve Johnson, who runs a program in chemical, biological and radiological weapons forensics at Cranfield University in the United Kingdom, said that by the end of the week the UN might be able to answer whether “people died of a nerve agent.”
Johnson said the team, if pushed, could produce “some kind of view” on that issue within 24 to 48 hours.
Dan Kastesza, a 20-year veteran of the US Army Chemical Corps and a former adviser to the White House on chemical and biological weapons proliferation, told IPS the team will not be looking for traces of the nerve gas sarin in blood samples but rather chemicals produced when sarin degrades.
But Kastesza said that once samples arrive at laboratories, specialists could make a determination “in a day or two” about whether a nerve agent or other chemical weapons had been used.
The real reason for the Obama administration’s hostility toward the UN investigation appears to be the fear that the Syrian government’s decision to allow the team access to the area indicates that it knows that UN investigators will not find evidence of a nerve gas attack.
The administration’s effort to discredit the investigation recalls the George W. Bush administration’s rejection of the position of UN inspectors in 2002 and 2003 after they found no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the administration’s refusal to give inspectors more time to fully rule out the existence of an active Iraqi WMD program.
In both cases, the administration had made up its mind to go to war and wanted no information that could contradict that policy to arise
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
.. and you and democrats would be screaming bloody murder.
evince
Truthmatters
did Bush agree with the UN findings or not?
Did Bush lie about the facts on the ground?
Why are you claiming the UN has said what it found when it has not?
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
I guess we're just to busy with our own NAZI government doing bad things to us to be distracted with things that ARE NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.
McCain has the job now.
Criticizing Obama for not doing it sooner -saying "we are losing credibility if we don't act"
The usual incitements to bellicosity rhetorics. Thing IS Obama is also predicating this on "we have to do something"
Though just WHY....well don't worry about it, bombs away.... Another "coalition of the Killing"
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
If that was even remotely true .. why would the majority of Syrians support Assad?
Question: Why do you support Al Qaida?
cawacko
Well-known member
What is your envisioned outcome of U.S. involvement?
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
The admin "plan" right now is not adequately defined. It's not enough to just want to "send a message".
It seems too rushed and ill-conceived.
It seems too rushed and ill-conceived.
cawacko
Well-known member
And then what? 100,000 people have been killed in the civil war. Do we stay involved? Do we overthrow Assad? Do we just exit and let the civil war continue?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
QUESTION TO ALL WHO SUPPORT INVASION: WHY DO YOU SUPPORT AL QAIDA?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...arin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/#ixzz2dFWoNQFY
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...arin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/#ixzz2dFWoNQFY
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
WHY DO YOU SUPPORT AL QAIDA?
some dissembling that the locals "rebels" are not the AQ "affiliates", not that i believe it -
impossible to seperate out the Free Syrian Co-Alition factions - they (AQ afilliates) are supposedly more in the north (rather then around Damascus)
Meaningless if Assad should fall; meaning stay OUT OF IT. Meaningless parsing of alliances too.