Well Cameron in British parliament had longer speech but with similiar reasoning. It seems thats not that much about public but more about lack of arguments.
Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria
- Thread starter Defiant47
- Start date
Well Cameron in British parliament had longer speech but with similiar reasoning. It seems thats not that much about public but more about lack of arguments.
Peck of Arabia
Sociable Recluse
Parliamentary democracy, ftw!
The BBC have been awfully sore about the outcome- I imagine they were looking forward to a war to report on- I think they even went so far as to suggest this was a "Victory for the Assad Regime" this lunchtime
The BBC have been awfully sore about the outcome- I imagine they were looking forward to a war to report on- I think they even went so far as to suggest this was a "Victory for the Assad Regime" this lunchtime
Peck of Arabia
Sociable Recluse
If only... the website's the pinnacle of impartiality; This was a throwaway remark on the 24 hour news channel that I'm not entirely sure I heard right
The other stuff is probably in my head too, but I swear they've been taking up 20 mins of a half hour news cycle for the last week building up the case for intervention
The other stuff is probably in my head too, but I swear they've been taking up 20 mins of a half hour news cycle for the last week building up the case for intervention
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
This is a pretty ignorant thing to say.
Our 'wannabe king' doesn't even have the power to pass a budget without Congress's approval and he can't even get his nominations through. Our government is so dysfunctional precisely because we don't have an all-powerful king.
One area where he does have nearly-total control of is our military. Congress passed a law after Vietnam that gives the President the authority to take military action without their consent for up to 6 months, after which he's supposed to ask for approval, though they usually just defer to him.
DemonicAppleGuY
King
Inaction from the West is something of a victory for the Assad regime, in the sense that it is a loss for the West.
Wow 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/us-syria-crisis-britain-idUSBRE97R1BD20130830
This is huge.
Barring Saudi Arabia secretly sending more gas to the rebels to stage more atrocities
Barring Assad doing something like using WMD's again while he is already winning, looks like the United States will have to bomb Syria alone unless another ally has Tomahawk cruise missiles.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/us-syria-crisis-britain-idUSBRE97R1BD20130830
This is huge.
Barring Assad doing something like using WMD's again while he is already winning, looks like the United States will have to bomb Syria alone unless another ally has Tomahawk cruise missiles.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
France is in.
Can't count on the other Arab states, they all condemn Assad but won't lift a finger; they will let the US do the dirty deeds so they aren't seen as attacking another Muslim state. I think some did intervene in Libya, but they can't be counted on this time.
I wonder how Israel will respond to the counterattack Syria will launch at them? Maybe the Iron Dome system will be effective enough to negate the need to respond.
Can't count on the other Arab states, they all condemn Assad but won't lift a finger; they will let the US do the dirty deeds so they aren't seen as attacking another Muslim state. I think some did intervene in Libya, but they can't be counted on this time.
I wonder how Israel will respond to the counterattack Syria will launch at them? Maybe the Iron Dome system will be effective enough to negate the need to respond.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
That still doesn't rationalize what many consider to be a completely absurd law that does give our presidents temporary "wannabe king" powers to wage war that have been frequently abused.
DemonicAppleGuY
King
Isn't there supposed to be another vote by the British parliament after the UN inspectors publish their report?
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
I was combating ignorance, not rationalizing anything.
No matter what happens, the real winners here are the people who produce, sell, and trade oil.
$4+ gas is back and soon headed to $5 if shooting starts.
Hopefully it doesn't break the economy again like it did 5 or 6 years ago.
$4+ gas is back and soon headed to $5 if shooting starts.
Hopefully it doesn't break the economy again like it did 5 or 6 years ago.
DemonicAppleGuY
King
No matter what happens, the real winners here are the people who produce, sell, and trade oil.
$4+ gas is back and soon headed to $5 if shooting starts.
Hopefully it doesn't break the economy again like it did 5 or 6 years ago.
Gas is well under $4 where I'm at...?
The whole story with gas attack is a conspiracy between Saudi Arabia and Russia to earn money and hurt EU and US!No matter what happens, the real winners here are the people who produce, sell, and trade oil.
$4+ gas is back and soon headed to $5 if shooting starts.
kramerfan86
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,572
Still doesnt erase the fact he wants to ignore the people's will, international law, and the UN.
Also that law is just stupid, I cant believe the congress so foolishly made a permanent law that basically took away their war powers.
Update
[quote="New York Times - Kerry Outlines Evidence of Chemical Attack by Syria]Secretary of State John Kerry declared on Friday there was clear and compelling evidence that the government of President Bashar al-Assad used poison gas against its citizens, as the Obama administration released an unclassified intelligence report on the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
Read for yourselves the evidence from thousands of sources, Mr. Kerry said in aggressively laying out the administrations case for strikes on Syria. This is the indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons. This is what Assad did to his own people.
Mr. Kerry said that more than 1,400 people were killed in the chemical attack, including more than 400 children.
A four-page intelligence summary released by the White House said the government had concluded that the Assad government had carried out a chemical weapons attack outside Damascus, based on human sources as well as communications intercepts. The suggestion that the opposition might have been responsible is highly unlikely, the assessment said.
Mr. Kerry said the administration had high confidence in the intelligence, much of which was being released to the public as he spoke. But he vowed that the government had carefully reviewed the evidence to avoid the kind of intelligence failures that preceded the Iraq war.
We will not repeat that moment, he said.
Mr. Kerry said the time for questions about what happened in Syria had passed.
The question is whether we we collectively what are we and the world going to do about it? Mr. Kerry said. He said that taking action in the face of the use of chemical weapons matters deeply to the credibility and the future interests of the United States.
Mr. Kerry acknowledged that the public in the United States was weary of war, saying that he, too, was tired after the years of military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. But he said that should not be used as an excuse not to act.
Fatigue does not absolve us of our responsibility, he declared. Just longing for peace does not necessarily bring it about.
American intelligence agencies in the three days before the Aug. 21 attack detected signs of activities by the Syrian authorities associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack, the assessment said. Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the suburb of Adra from Aug. 18 until early on the morning of Aug. 21. On that date, it added, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack, including the use of gas masks.
Spy satellites detected rocket launchings from government-controlled territory 90 minutes before the first reports of a chemical weapons attack. The intelligence agencies said they had identified more than 100 videos related to the attack, many showing large numbers of bodies with physical signs consistent with nerve agents, and they added that the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos.
The agencies also said they had intercepted the communications of a senior Syrian official who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on Aug. 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence, the assessment said. It added that on the afternoon of that day, Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations.
President Obama is preparing to respond to the chemical attacks with a limited military strike on Syria despite Britains refusal to participate in the assault and expressions of deep reservation in Congress and among the American public.
The administration has repeatedly said there is no question that the government of Mr. Assad used chemical weapons against its own people in an attack that killed hundreds of people.
That would cross the red line that Mr. Obama drew last year, when he declared that the large-scale use of chemical weapons by Mr. Assad would change my calculus about American involvement in Syrias bloody civil war.
Aides have said that the president has not yet made up his mind about whether to strike Syria.
Pentagon officials have moved warships and other military assets closer to Syria in preparation for a possible attack, which would most likely involve the use of cruise missiles. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has said the military is ready to execute any decision by Mr. Obama. [/quote]
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/john-kerry-syria.html?_r=0
Discussion
If the intel is correct, reliable, and not fabricated, then we should admonish the United States government and the Obama administration for not carrying out an attack already, with or without UN or popular support. Maybe we can give them a break given that we need Russia's cooperation given their interests in the area.
So the way I see it, there are two discussions that need to be had:
1. Assuming intel is reliable, what now?
If the intel is reliable that Asaad's government did indeed carry out a chemical attack, are we justified in invading? Or should we just let it go?
What if it resorts to using chemical weapons some more? Are we all cool with innocents dying horrible and agonizing deaths in the name of keeping an inhuman monster in power?
Should we avoid intervening if the UN decides to talk about "peace" and do nothing? Should we avoid intervening if the American population doesn't want to go to war?
2. Can we trust the United States government not to lie to us regarding the intel?
If we have established that we should invade in case the intel is correct... how much can we trust the intel? Might the United States fake such reports in order to justify a casus belli and thus solidify its strategic interest in the Middle East?
Defiant's Take
1. We were justified in taking action once Asaad started shooting on peaceful protesters, just like Gaddafi. But it would have taken too many resources and too much political leverage to effectively orchestrate it. So it wasn't worth it at that point.
We are absolutely justified in "taking action" if Asaad has used chemical weapons. The UN should be ignored unless the political fallout from ignoring Russia's veto is too great to manage. The will of the people is an important and powerful consideration to make, but ultimately only second to the suffering of innocent lives.
2. It is possible that the U.S. might manufacture or hype up the intel, but I wouldn't consider it probable. That just might be my optimistic or pro-American bias.
Recommendation: Use minimum military force and involvement necessary to pacify the situation. This can mean full-scale invasion. Or it could be accomplished with just a no-fly zone. The military generals know best.
[quote="New York Times - Kerry Outlines Evidence of Chemical Attack by Syria]Secretary of State John Kerry declared on Friday there was clear and compelling evidence that the government of President Bashar al-Assad used poison gas against its citizens, as the Obama administration released an unclassified intelligence report on the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
Read for yourselves the evidence from thousands of sources, Mr. Kerry said in aggressively laying out the administrations case for strikes on Syria. This is the indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons. This is what Assad did to his own people.
Mr. Kerry said that more than 1,400 people were killed in the chemical attack, including more than 400 children.
A four-page intelligence summary released by the White House said the government had concluded that the Assad government had carried out a chemical weapons attack outside Damascus, based on human sources as well as communications intercepts. The suggestion that the opposition might have been responsible is highly unlikely, the assessment said.
Mr. Kerry said the administration had high confidence in the intelligence, much of which was being released to the public as he spoke. But he vowed that the government had carefully reviewed the evidence to avoid the kind of intelligence failures that preceded the Iraq war.
We will not repeat that moment, he said.
Mr. Kerry said the time for questions about what happened in Syria had passed.
The question is whether we we collectively what are we and the world going to do about it? Mr. Kerry said. He said that taking action in the face of the use of chemical weapons matters deeply to the credibility and the future interests of the United States.
Mr. Kerry acknowledged that the public in the United States was weary of war, saying that he, too, was tired after the years of military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. But he said that should not be used as an excuse not to act.
Fatigue does not absolve us of our responsibility, he declared. Just longing for peace does not necessarily bring it about.
American intelligence agencies in the three days before the Aug. 21 attack detected signs of activities by the Syrian authorities associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack, the assessment said. Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the suburb of Adra from Aug. 18 until early on the morning of Aug. 21. On that date, it added, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack, including the use of gas masks.
Spy satellites detected rocket launchings from government-controlled territory 90 minutes before the first reports of a chemical weapons attack. The intelligence agencies said they had identified more than 100 videos related to the attack, many showing large numbers of bodies with physical signs consistent with nerve agents, and they added that the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos.
The agencies also said they had intercepted the communications of a senior Syrian official who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on Aug. 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence, the assessment said. It added that on the afternoon of that day, Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations.
President Obama is preparing to respond to the chemical attacks with a limited military strike on Syria despite Britains refusal to participate in the assault and expressions of deep reservation in Congress and among the American public.
The administration has repeatedly said there is no question that the government of Mr. Assad used chemical weapons against its own people in an attack that killed hundreds of people.
That would cross the red line that Mr. Obama drew last year, when he declared that the large-scale use of chemical weapons by Mr. Assad would change my calculus about American involvement in Syrias bloody civil war.
Aides have said that the president has not yet made up his mind about whether to strike Syria.
Pentagon officials have moved warships and other military assets closer to Syria in preparation for a possible attack, which would most likely involve the use of cruise missiles. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has said the military is ready to execute any decision by Mr. Obama. [/quote]
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/john-kerry-syria.html?_r=0
Discussion
If the intel is correct, reliable, and not fabricated, then we should admonish the United States government and the Obama administration for not carrying out an attack already, with or without UN or popular support. Maybe we can give them a break given that we need Russia's cooperation given their interests in the area.
So the way I see it, there are two discussions that need to be had:
1. Assuming intel is reliable, what now?
If the intel is reliable that Asaad's government did indeed carry out a chemical attack, are we justified in invading? Or should we just let it go?
What if it resorts to using chemical weapons some more? Are we all cool with innocents dying horrible and agonizing deaths in the name of keeping an inhuman monster in power?
Should we avoid intervening if the UN decides to talk about "peace" and do nothing? Should we avoid intervening if the American population doesn't want to go to war?
2. Can we trust the United States government not to lie to us regarding the intel?
If we have established that we should invade in case the intel is correct... how much can we trust the intel? Might the United States fake such reports in order to justify a casus belli and thus solidify its strategic interest in the Middle East?
Defiant's Take
1. We were justified in taking action once Asaad started shooting on peaceful protesters, just like Gaddafi. But it would have taken too many resources and too much political leverage to effectively orchestrate it. So it wasn't worth it at that point.
We are absolutely justified in "taking action" if Asaad has used chemical weapons. The UN should be ignored unless the political fallout from ignoring Russia's veto is too great to manage. The will of the people is an important and powerful consideration to make, but ultimately only second to the suffering of innocent lives.
2. It is possible that the U.S. might manufacture or hype up the intel, but I wouldn't consider it probable. That just might be my optimistic or pro-American bias.
Recommendation: Use minimum military force and involvement necessary to pacify the situation. This can mean full-scale invasion. Or it could be accomplished with just a no-fly zone. The military generals know best.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
If Assad used chemical weapons a strike is necessary, to prevent others from thinking that such attacks in the future might be okay.
However, I do not trust the U.S. to tell the truth when fabricating their own C.B.
Fool me once... (or twice or however many times they've done this)
However, I do not trust the U.S. to tell the truth when fabricating their own C.B.
Fool me once... (or twice or however many times they've done this)
