So How Does Syria Play Out?

[Turdacious]

Yeah, we wouldn't want an ideologically consistent, anti-intervention, small government, free market, constitutional conservative who's 30 years younger than Ron Paul out there.

You want an effective one, not just a symbolic one.

[johno]

Coulter Gold:

COMMUNITY ORGANIZER GOES TO WAR
September 4, 2013

Oh, how I long for the days when liberals wailed that "the rest of the world" hated America, rather than now, when the rest of the world laughs at us.

With the vast majority of Americans opposing a strike against Syria, President Obama has requested that Congress vote on his powers as commander in chief under the Constitution. The president doesn't need congressional approval to shoot a few missiles into Syria, nor -- amazingly -- has he said he'll abide by such a vote, anyway.

Why is Congress even having a vote? This is nothing but a fig leaf to cover Obama's own idiotic "red line" ultimatum to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria on chemical weapons. The Nobel Peace Prize winner needs to get Congress on the record so that whatever happens, the media can blame Republicans.

No Republican who thinks seriously about America's national security interests -- by which I mean to exclude John McCain and Lindsey Graham -- can support Obama's "plan" to shoot blindly into this hornet's nest.

It would be completely different if we knew with absolute certainty that Assad was responsible for chemical attacks on his own people. (I'm still waiting to see if it was a Syrian upset about a YouTube video.)

It would be different if instead of killing a few hundred civilians, Assad had killed 5,000 civilians with poison gas in a single day, as well as tens of thousands more with chemical weapons in the past few decades.

It would be different if Assad were known to torture his own people, administer summary executions, rapes, burnings and electric shocks, often in front of the victim's wife or children.

It would be different if Assad had acted aggressively toward the United States itself, perhaps attempting to assassinate a former U.S. president or giving shelter to terrorists who had struck within the U.S. -- someone like Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood terrorist.

It would be different if Assad were stirring up trouble in the entire Middle East by, for example, paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers in other countries.

It would also be different if we could be sure that intervention in Syria would not lead to a multi-nation conflagration.

It would be different if we knew that any action against Syria would not put al-Qaida or the Muslim Brotherhood in power, but rather would result in a functioning, peaceful democracy.

And it would be different if an attack on Syria would so terrify other dictators in the region that they would instantly give up their WMDs -- say, Iran abandoning its nuclear program.

If all of that were true, this would be a military intervention worth supporting!

All of that was true about Iraq, but the Democrats hysterically opposed that war. They opposed it even after all this was known to be true -- indeed, especially after it was known to be true! The loudest opponent was Barack Obama.

President Saddam Hussein of Iraq had attempted to assassinate former president George H.W. Bush. He gave shelter to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.

Soon after Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, Libya's Moammar Gadhafi was so terrified of an attack on his own country, he voluntarily relinquished his WMDs -- which turned out to be far more extensive than previously imagined.

Al-Qaida not only did not take over Iraq, but got its butt handed to it in Iraq, where the U.S. and its allies killed thousands of al-Qaida fighters, including the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Iraq became the first genuine Arab democracy, holding several elections and presiding over a trial of Saddam Hussein.

Does anyone imagine that any of this would result from an Obama-led operation in Syria? How did his interventions work out in Egypt and Libya?

As for chemical weapons -- the casus belli for the current drums of war -- in a matter of hours on March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein slaughtered roughly 5,000 Kurdish civilians in Halabja with mustard, sarin and VX gas. The victims blistered, vomited or laughed hysterically before dropping dead. Thousands more would die later from the after-effects of these poisons.

Saddam launched nearly two dozen more chemical attacks on the Kurds, resulting in at least 50,000 deaths, perhaps three times that many. That's to say nothing of the tens of thousands of Iranians Saddam killed with poison gas. Indeed, in making the case against Assad recently, Secretary of State John Kerry said his use of chemical weapons put him in the same league as "Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein."

Not even close -- but may we ask why Kerry sneered at the war that removed such a monster as Hussein?


There were endless United Nations reports and resolutions both establishing that Saddam had used chemical weapons and calling on him to give them up. (For the eighth billionth time, we did find chemical weapons in Iraq, just no "stockpiles." Those had been moved before the war, according to Saddam's own general, Georges Sada -- to Syria.)

On far less evidence, our current president accuses Assad of using chemical weapons against a fraction of the civilians provably murdered with poison gas by Saddam Hussein. So why did Obama angrily denounce the military operation that removed Hussein? Why did he call that a "war of choice"?

Obama says Assad -- unlike that great statesman Saddam Hussein -- has posed "a challenge to the world." But the world disagrees. Even our usual ally, Britain, disagrees. So Obama demands the United States act alone to stop a dictator, who -- compared to Saddam -- is a piker.

At this point, Assad is at least 49,000 dead bodies short of the good cause the Iraq War was, even if chemical weapons had been the only reason to take out Saddam Hussein.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013- ... #read_more

[Wild Bill]

Also a nice time to take a little swipe at Russia, because why not?

Talking geopolitically, any American war with islam world is a good thing for Russia :)

[Batboy2/75]

Just heard our insane Sectary of State claim that if we don't bomb Assad the Rebels will commit more atrocities. WTF?

IMO we are going to bomb the wrong people. If given a choice between Assad and the Jihadist; bomb the mother fucking Jihadist. There are no moderate rebel forces in Syria. Better to leave things in Assads hands.

Sec. Kerry is a down right liar and bad one at that. Same for McCain; he has a hard on for bombing Syria for some reason. These assholes will say anything to justify doing the Arab worldS dirty work.

Bomb the Jihadist in Syria and bomb their sponsors in Suadi Arabia, Egypt, and the Gulf states.

A real American Secretary of State would had slugged any Arab delegation that even suggested we rent out our military. Fucking Coward Arabs want us the do their fighting. I find the whole matter insulting.

[kreator]

Rebels have already been caught with small cannisters of sarin and a senior UN official (del Ponte) believes they have used them in combat. They've tortured and executed POWs, killed/beheaded civilians, cannibalized/desecrated bodies, kidnapped bishops, etc.

What is their "redline" ?

Still trying to understand what makes chemical weapon usage graver than the above offenses.

[TerryB]

Still trying to understand what makes chemical weapon usage graver than the above offenses.

Theyre scarier than having your head hacked off with a machete I guess.

[nafod]

Rebels have already been caught with small cannisters of sarin and a senior UN official (del Ponte) believes they have used them in combat. They've tortured and executed POWs, killed/beheaded civilians, cannibalized/desecrated bodies, kidnapped bishops, etc.

What is their "redline" ?

Still trying to understand what makes chemical weapon usage graver than the above offenses.

https://www.google.com/search?q=why+are ... e&ie=UTF-8

[kreator]

Rebels have already been caught with small cannisters of sarin and a senior UN official (del Ponte) believes they have used them in combat. They've tortured and executed POWs, killed/beheaded civilians, cannibalized/desecrated bodies, kidnapped bishops, etc.

What is their "redline" ?

Still trying to understand what makes chemical weapon usage graver than the above offenses.

https://www.google.com/search?q=why+are ... e&ie=UTF-8

So your link posts arguments why chemical weapons are bad. But why does it not apply to the rebels again (they have them)?

Plus the main reason I see for a response to chemical weapons is that they are banned internationally. Fair enough.

But so is desecration of the dead:
http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/d ... ul_rule113

And execution of POWs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Gene ... ers_of_War

[Kazuya Mishima]

Iran starting to talk some mad stupid ish.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/05/iran- ... its-syria/

[Andy83]

Let's face it. We have lost the war against the ragheads. The beginning of the end happened when Onumbnutz "ended the war in Iraq". We had a good handle on that country and dumbass fucktard Obama handed it all over with his balls to Iran.

[Pinky]

Plus the main reason I see for a response to chemical weapons is that they are banned internationally.

But so is desecration of the dead:

And execution of POWs:

Unilateral international vigilantism is also banned by international law, but the Dalai Bama has transcended such earthly limitations.

And there's no need to worry about the radical factions in Syria getting out of hand. If they do, the administration will simply repeat the great success it's had with drone strikes in Yemen.

[Andy83]

Side note: Syria never signed on to any treaty banning the use of chemical weapons or any other WMDs.

[Herv100]

Big Surprise, its actually our Al Qaeda buddy rebels who used chemical weapons

Russia gave UN 100-page report in July blaming Syrian rebels for Aleppo sarin attack

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/2 ... rylink=cpy
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/2 ... in-KFPeTDk

Russia releases key findings on chemical attack near Aleppo indicating similarity with rebel-made weapons

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

Rebel(our buddy) admitting they used chemicals
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5kda1KhqlU[/youtube]

EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses- ... ns/168135/

[Pinky]

I just can't believe that we could ever elect a man capable of lying about something as serious as weapons of mass destruction.

[nafod]

Rebels have already been caught with small cannisters of sarin and a senior UN official (del Ponte) believes they have used them in combat. They've tortured and executed POWs, killed/beheaded civilians, cannibalized/desecrated bodies, kidnapped bishops, etc.

What is their "redline" ?

Still trying to understand what makes chemical weapon usage graver than the above offenses.

https://www.google.com/search?q=why+are ... e&ie=UTF-8

So your link posts arguments why chemical weapons are bad. But why does it not apply to the rebels again (they have them)?

Plus the main reason I see for a response to chemical weapons is that they are banned internationally. Fair enough.

But so is desecration of the dead:
http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/d ... ul_rule113

And execution of POWs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Gene ... ers_of_War

IF someone was in charge of the rebels, they'd be the "Assad" of the rebels who would be having his cajones held to the fire. Assad is Syria for at least a while longer. He is held responsible for the stuff they made and that they use.

I get the argument that dead is dead, no matter how it happens. It seems perverse that international society would come up with standards for killing. But if you ask someone if there is a difference between two professional men of arms squaring off over open ocean in fighter jets, and using biological or chemical weapons designed to deliver maximal pain to a civilian mass population target prior to killing them in a scenario of prolonged agony, everyone agrees there is a difference. There is a line. So where's the line? When does grey become more black than white? Idunno, but chemical weapons is on the wrong side of it. You use them, we hunt you down. Rebel or head of state.

[Pinky]

It seems perverse that international society would come up with standards for killing...You use them, we hunt you down. Rebel or head of state.

Unless, of course, we gave you coordinates and then stood back as you gassed people we don't like. Then you can expect a harshly worded letter from the UN.

[Herv100]

I just can't believe that we could ever elect a man capable of lying about something as serious as weapons of mass destruction.

another oldie but goodie

Nayirah Testimony refers to the controversial testimony given before the non-governmental Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990, by a female who provided only her first name, Nayirah. In her emotional testimony, Nayirah stated that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die. Though reporters did not then have access to Kuwait, her testimony was regarded as credible at the time and was widely publicized. It was cited numerous times by United States senators and the president in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War.

Her story was initially corroborated by Amnesty International[1] and testimony from evacuees. Following the liberation of Kuwait, reporters were given access to the country and found the story of stolen incubators unsubstantiated. However, they did find that a number of people, including babies, died when nurses and doctors fled the country.

In 1992, it was revealed that child actor Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ (Arabic: نيره الصباح‎) and that she was the daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton(New York based marketing company) Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has largely come to be regarded as wartime propaganda.

[nafod]

It seems perverse that international society would come up with standards for killing...You use them, we hunt you down. Rebel or head of state.

Unless, of course, we gave you coordinates and then stood back as you gassed people we don't like. Then you can expect a harshly worded letter from the UN.

Or eventually worse. Reap what you sow.

[Pinky]

Saddam didn't hang for gassing Iranian troops in the 80s.

[Kazuya Mishima]

You can trust old Pat to give it to us straight...not just the Arabs, but those hook nosed, money changing rats are also behind the push for a war. Wake up white people...we've got a nigger puppet in the White House.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/just-whose-war-is-this/

[Andy83]

Obama doesn't fight wars. He just surrenders.

[Wild Bill]

Rebels have already been caught with small cannisters of sarin and a senior UN official (del Ponte) believes they have used them in combat. They've tortured and executed POWs, killed/beheaded civilians, cannibalized/desecrated bodies, kidnapped bishops, etc.

What is their "redline" ?

Still trying to understand what makes chemical weapon usage graver than the above offenses.

https://www.google.com/search?q=why+are ... e&ie=UTF-8

Why rebels wasn't bombed???

[baffled]

Two things:

1) It seems the government's argument and explanation to their constituents has changed a bit and is now squarely in the "fuck you, that's why" school of reasoning:

"It's conceivable that, at the end of the day, I don't persuade a majority of the American people that it's the right thing to do," Obama said in response to a question from ABC News during a solo press conference at the conclusion of the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia.

But, Obama said, members of Congress need to consider the lessons of World War II and their own consciences and vote 'yes' to authorize the use of force, even if it means going against the opinion of the majority of their constituents.

"Each member of Congress is going to have to decide if [they] think it's the right thing to do for America's national security and the world's national security," Obama said. "Ultimately, you listen to your constituents, but you've got to make some decisions about what you believe is right for America."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/presiden ... d=20178022

2) I'm pretty sure nafod drools into his own lap and shouldn't be allowed to use a fork for fear he may lose an eye.

[nafod]

Two things:

1) It seems the government's argument and explanation to their constituents has changed a bit and is now squarely in the "fuck you, that's why" school of reasoning:

"It's conceivable that, at the end of the day, I don't persuade a majority of the American people that it's the right thing to do," Obama said in response to a question from ABC News during a solo press conference at the conclusion of the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia.

But, Obama said, members of Congress need to consider the lessons of World War II and their own consciences and vote 'yes' to authorize the use of force, even if it means going against the opinion of the majority of their constituents.

"Each member of Congress is going to have to decide if [they] think it's the right thing to do for America's national security and the world's national security," Obama said. "Ultimately, you listen to your constituents, but you've got to make some decisions about what you believe is right for America."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/presiden ... d=20178022

2) I'm pretty sure nafod drools into his own lap and shouldn't be allowed to use a fork for fear he may lose an eye.

Americans sat around scratching their nuts for 15 years while Al Qaeda kept trying to score big on US territory. It took 9-11 to rouse us to overreaction. The same thing will happen with chemical weapons. We'll all look the other way for a million different excuses while their use becomes a norm and everyone gets comfortable with reading about the latest area blanketed with a cloud of gas and a few thousand dead. It's just another weapon, right? Iraw used them and nobody bombed them for it, roght? Well, not immediately, not until they got moved to Syria. But anyway, Pandora's box will be opened. Then they will arrive here eventually. Too easy a target.

[DrDonkeyLove]

I think the Ossiah has decided that he can't lose this battle. He's taken the high ground stance that HE'S defending the world against Weapons of Mass Destruction. If congress green lights his symbolic shot across the bow, HE took the moral stand (Gary Cooper in High Noon). If congress doesn't authorize his symbolism, the people have spoken and he gets all high minded about bowing to the will of the people.

Should some sarin gas get released in a subway someplace in the future, he'll say that the blood of innocents is not on his hands, it's on the hands of those who lacked the moral courage to take a stand with HIM.

This bastard can fail himself to success like no one I've ever seen.