Syria became a perfect political football for President Obama

[IsntLifeFunny]

"Secretary Kerry seems to have been sandbagged into using an absurdly over-precise number," said Anthony Cordesman, former director of intelligence assessment at the U.S. Defense Department.

Now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, he writes on the CSIS website, "Put simply, there is no way in hell the U.S. intelligence community could credibly have made an estimate this exact."

Lies as usual. If they will lie about the death toll, then what else will they lie about? This is my problem with the whole thing. Once again the government is lying and then turning around and telling us to believe them with eyes wide shut.

[IsntLifeFunny]

Do you really expect them to release every single bit of classified info to the public? Really?

No. I expect them to show concrete proof to Congress, which is yet to be done.

[Guest]

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/201391142319670421.html

 

I've been trying to wade in on this, but since this is the first week of classes I haven't had a massive amount of time. In short, I think we should table using Obama's name--because this shouldn't be about him. Considering the leaders of the House are on the same page as Obama, I think it's safe to say if you are reading this post you think either they or Obama are toxic pieces of shit. So let's not make this about liberal or conservative, Obama or Repubs, etc. It's counterproductive, and frankly stupid. I'm one of the most liberal posters on the board, and yet somehow I'm on the same page as many conservatives. I don't care if these folks became anti-war overnight because of Obama and are ill-informed hypocrites (not saying you are--just pointing out a hypothetical). I'll take whatever I can get. 

 

Here's a piece I read on AlJazeera that I felt was spot on. And if you are the kind of person who rejects reading this piece simply because of the site it is published on your opinions and ideas deserve to be dismissed as ignorant. 

 

Excerpt: 

 

"What should the US do?

 

First thing, stop this false dichotomy of it's either military force or nothing. The use of chemical weapons is a war crime, it is indeed what Secretary Kerry called a "moral obscenity". Whoever used such a weapon should be held accountable. So what do we do about it?

 

First, do no harm. Don't kill more people in the name of enforcing an international norm.

 

Recognise that international law requires international enforcement; no one country, not even the most powerful, has the right to act as unilateral cop. Move to support international jurisdiction and enforcement, including calling for a second UN investigation to follow-up the current weapons inspection team, this one to determine who was responsible for the attack.

 

Recommend that whoever is found responsible be brought to justice in The Hague at the International Criminal Court, understanding that timing of such indictments might require adjustment to take into account ceasefire negotiations in Syria.

 

President Obama can distinguish himself powerfully from his unilateralist predecessor by announcing an immediate campaign not only to get the Senate to ratify the International Criminal Court, but to strengthen the Court and provide it with serious global enforcement capacity.

 

Move urgently towards a ceasefire and arms embargo in Syria. Russia must stop, and must push Iran to stop arming and funding the Syrian regime. The US must stop, and must push Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan and others to stop arming and funding the opposition, including the extremist elements. That won't be easy - for Washington it may require telling the Saudis and Qataris that if they don't stop, we will cancel all existing weapons contracts with those countries. (As my colleague David Wildman has said, why don't we demand that the Pentagon deal with arms producers the way the Department of Agriculture deals with farmers - pay them not to produce weapons? And then the money can be used to retool their factories to produce solar panels instead of Tomahawk missiles, and the workers stay on the job….)

 

Stand against further escalation of the Syrian civil war by voting no on any authorisation for US military strikes."

[reo]

No. I expect them to show concrete proof to Congress, which is yet to be done.

 

How do you know what's been shown to Congress if some of it's classified?

[ALTitan]

 That is from a previous attack in May:

 

BEIRUT — A leading member of a United Nations investigatory commission says there are “strong concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof” that Syrian rebels have used the nerve agent sarin.

Carla del Ponte, a former prosecutor for U.N. tribunals investigating war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, made the comment in an interview Sunday with a Swiss television channel, the BBC reported.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/06/world/la-fg-wn-un-syria-rebels-chemical-weapons-20130506

[IsntLifeFunny]

How do you know what's been shown to Congress if some of it's classified?

I'm going by quotes from the members of Congress who aren't toeing the line. The ones who are against this have openly said they are yet to see concrete proof and are awaiting such before they will commit our forces.

[IsntLifeFunny]

 That is from a previous attack in May:

 

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/06/world/la-fg-wn-un-syria-rebels-chemical-weapons-20130506

Yep. I read an article describing how Turkish forces found five Syrian rebels with 2KG of sarin. This is another article:

 

• the shell used in the incident “does not belong to the standard ammunition of the Syrian army and was crudely according to type and parameters of the rocket-propelled unguided missiles manufactured in the north of Syria by the so-called Bashair al-Nasr brigade”;

• RDX, which is also known as hexogen or cyclonite, was used as the bursting charge for the shell, and it is “not used in standard chemical munitions”;

• soil and shell samples contain “the non-industrially synthesized nerve agent sarin and diisopropylfluorophosphate,” which was “used by Western states for producing chemical weapons during World War II.”

The findings of the report are “extremely specific,” as they mostly consist of scientific and technical data from probes’ analysis, the ministry stressed, adding that this data can “substantially aid” the UN investigation of the incident.

While focusing on the Khan al-Assal attack on March 19, in which at least 26 civilians and Syrian army soldiers were killed, and 86 more were injured, the Russian Foreign Ministry also criticized the “flawed selective approach” of certain states in reporting the recent incidents of alleged chemical weapons use in August.

http://rt.com/news/chemical-aleppo-findings-russia-417/

 

I know it's not the greatest of sources...but the information is pertinent.

[reo]

 That is from a previous attack in May:

 

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/06/world/la-fg-wn-un-syria-rebels-chemical-weapons-20130506

 

They said in the other article that they had Syrian troop movements in the area including chemical weapons personnel and the utilization of gas masks. It's not saying the rebels can't use sarin, they're saying they couldn't on the scale that was used.

 

I'm going by quotes from the members of Congress who aren't toeing the line. The ones who are against this have openly said they are yet to see concrete proof and are awaiting such before they will commit our forces.

 

You can't tell if they're playing politics or what. Plenty of politicians, even some traditionally against Obama have supported it and other countries have backed the intelligence.

 

Yep. I read an article describing how Turkish forces found five Syrian rebels with 2KG of sarin. This is another article:

 

http://rt.com/news/chemical-aleppo-findings-russia-417/

 

I know it's not the greatest of sources...but the information is pertinent.

 

They didn't sayin the rebels don't have it. It's the combination of everything.

 

 

 

I'm not even saying they should. There aren't any good solutions here but the evidence seems like it's probably there.

[ALTitan]

They said in the other article that they had Syrian troop movements in the area including chemical weapons personnel and the utilization of gas masks. It's not saying the rebels can't use sarin, they're saying they couldn't on the scale that was used.

 

You've missed the point. The point was not either Government or rebels used the chemical weapons in Aug., but either rebels have used the chemical weapons in the past. If rebels did indeed use chemical weapons in the past as a leading UN Inspector claims they did then it would be stupid to bomb the Government for doing the same thing.

[Little Earl]

I've been trying to wade in on this, but since this is the first week of classes I haven't had a massive amount of time. In short, I think we should table using Obama's name--because this shouldn't be about him. Considering the leaders of the House are on the same page as Obama, I think it's safe to say if you are reading this post you think either they or Obama are toxic pieces of shit. So let's not make this about liberal or conservative, Obama or Repubs, etc. It's counterproductive, and frankly stupid. I'm one of the most liberal posters on the board, and yet somehow I'm on the same page as many conservatives. I don't care if these folks became anti-war overnight because of Obama and are ill-informed hypocrites (not saying you are--just pointing out a hypothetical). I'll take whatever I can get. 

 

It's not that conservatives have become anti-war, we just see no reason to do anything that aids our enemies.  

[ALTitan]

 BTW, I've seen a very interesting suggestion of what has happened in Aug: 

 

- Both sides have used chemical weapons in the past

- On Aug.21, Government troops have managed to miss the target (they are not using precise weaponry) and hit residential neighborhoods instead of rebels.

 So, that what has created this whole mess and screwd Obama with his "red line".

 

 Don't know either it is true or not, but it sounds plausible.

[reo]

You've missed the point. The point was not either Government or rebels used the chemical weapons in Aug., but either rebels have used the chemical weapons in the past. If rebels did indeed use chemical weapons in the past as a leading UN Inspector claims they did then it would be stupid to bomb the Government for doing the same thing.

 

It's possible the rebels have used it before. I have no idea. I haven't seen any evidence that shows they did or didn't which is why I'm focusing on the other where evidence has been provided.

 

IsntLifeFunny said there wasn't evidence but there seems to be a good amount which was my point.

 

I'm not sure where I stand on attacking Syria.

[reo]

Doublespeak much?  Let's table Barry's name unless I want to use it.

 

If Barry hadn't drawn a blurred red line in the sand like a junior high bully wannabe and then tried to push the responsibility of backing up the threat onto Congress and the world, then there wouldn't be the urgency to do something quickly to save face for Barry and the US.  

 

who gives a damn about saving face? We're not in high school here. He's not running for re-election. That was his red line for a reason, not just to say it.

[IsntLifeFunny]

It's possible the rebels have used it before. I have no idea. I haven't seen any evidence that shows they did or didn't which is why I'm focusing on the other where evidence has been provided.

 

IsntLifeFunny said there wasn't evidence but there seems to be a good amount which was my point.

 

I'm not sure where I stand on attacking Syria.

I didn't say there wasn't evidence. Evidence does not equal proof, my friend.

[reo]

proof is the summation of evidence

 

proof

pro͞of/

noun

noun: proof; plural noun: proofs

1. 1.

   evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

   "you will be asked to give proof of your identity"

      

If you don't like the amount of evidence, how much do you want? It seems convincing.