Obama will unilaterally attack Syria Thursday

faethor said:
Okay it's Friday AM. No attack on Thursday. Perhaps Redrumloa meant next Thursday? And is that Thursday Syria time or East Coast?
Click to expand...


yeah i wondered about that too... turns out they're basically waiting for the inspectors to leave... the "news" heads are all saying sunday now... inspectors slated to leave on saturday...
 
I doubt there's gonna be an attack soon. The UK is out and so is Italy. Only the US and possibly France will take part. This does place pressure on the US not to attack, but sure they still could. But this is important as Italy has stated that their air bases are off limits for any attack and I suspect many other nations will take a similar attitude. That doesn't make it impossible but they may need to rethink the logistics.

And I think that's fine. I'm not an advocate for unilateral action. I think the UN inspectors need time to do their job, just as I thought they needed in 2003. The problem here is that the UN inspectors can't give us a real conclusive answer. All they can do is provide evidence that chemical weapons were used, not by who used them and that does suck. But it's probably not likely they'd be able to come to any real conclusion there either as Syria has reportedly destroyed the areas where chemicals were used with heavy artillery barrages that would pretty much erase any evidence either way.

I think intervention is warranted but should be done under the UN banner. I'm sure Russia would be willing to give up Syria for the right price. It's a sinking ship anyway, and with Putin's bargaining abilities I'm sure he'll make a killing on it. Eh, pardon the pun.
 
The difficult part is purposing. It seems it's a retribution against chemical weapons? But, it's not meant to take out the regime or be a major influence to the internal strife. Then, I'm not sure why we'd bother. Nor is the UK, nor is Italy, nor is China, nor is Russia, or basically anyone.

Rwanda genocide killed an estimated 1/2 million. Syria is under 1/4 million. This is all bad, of course. And what the 'right' or 'wrong' amount of dead during internal strife is always an interesting question.

But, unless we're going to try to occupy and keep the peace there really is no point. If this is punitive it should not be from USA only but from the UN or perhaps NATO. Though I do think a strong tongue lashing with a promise for an immediate strike should chemicals be used again should be issued from the USA unilaterally, if the UN can't handle that.
 
pelosi-assad.jpg


From the wayback machine: U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday for talks criticized by the White House as undermining American efforts to isolate the hard-line Arab country.

Democrats have argued that the United States should engage its top rivals in the Mideast — Iran and Syria
Click to expand...
 
The British cabinet are right behind attacking Syria. Fortunately the rest of the parliament is divided enough to prevent full support for now but this could, and probably will change.
 
Transcript: Obama's 2009 Speech Against The Iraq War


What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
]
Click to expand...
 
metalman said:
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
Click to expand...
How right he was!

"Liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." - Ken Ableman, Pentagon Defense Board.
"Five days or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last longer." - Donald Rumsfeld
"weeks rather than months." - Dick Cheney
--- Obama more right.

"something under $50 billion for the cost. " - Rumsfeld
-- Current cost $814Billion. Not including the interest on loans to borrow because Republicans don't believe in off-setting new spending with new revenue (aka taxes). Obama more right.

"One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror. ” - GWB. Who connected Iraq by invading and thereby making a new home for Al-Qaida. Obama right again.
...

In my opinion Obama won't go to war. It'll be a like Reagan's Libya drop a few bombs. Hopefully he'll still oppose a dumb war.
 
Glaucus said:
Honestly, I'd take your typical Syria food vendor over your typical American food vendor any day. There's lots of good eating in that part of the world. Syrian ice cream is supposed to be exceptional.
Click to expand...


i'd bet they are too. i found that in saudi and most middle east countries... turkey especially... food cart food was super yummy... but almost all breads have some seasoning... look at that stuff... plain jane... looks like dry ass white bread... the vinaigrette and what looks like jalapeno sauce is the only thing to add the flavor... ick... cook ur breads with the seasoning in it and increase the flavor... not even a damn poppy seed or cheese? really?
 
Glaucus said:
I doubt there's gonna be an attack soon. The UK is out and so is Italy.
Click to expand...
For now. The people are against it and the house is against it but the cabinet is still for it, and while the situation is tougher for Cameron, he can still go against the people like Blair did on Iraq - and try to count on the "support the soldiers during wartime" effect to bring the people around afterwards. Except we've had a decade of these regime changes now and it's the age of the internet - not as easy to hide the crimes any more. As Brezinski mentions:
Given the contemporary reality of what I have called in my writings "Global Political Awakening," a policy of force based primarily on Western and in some cases former colonial powers does not seem to me a very promising avenue to an eventual solution to the regional problem.
Click to expand...

I think the UN inspectors need time to do their job, just as I thought they needed in 2003. The problem here is that the UN inspectors can't give us a real conclusive answer. All they can do is provide evidence that chemical weapons were used, not by who used them and that does suck.
Click to expand...
Prior teams were able to determine that the composition of the chemicals used was less sophisticated than what would be expected of military weapons including the fact that the traces lacked expected stabilizers. However, the mandate of the inspectors on this trip is NOT to determine who used the weapons but just confirm if weapons were used.

However, that may almost be moot, because just as with the Iraq war it was important for the US to get the UN inspectors out BEFORE they could make a determination just like now. The inspectors are coming out to avoid expected strikes.
Syria has reportedly destroyed the areas where chemicals were used with heavy artillery barrages that would pretty much erase any evidence either way.
Click to expand...
Artillery won't destroy evidence of chemical weapons.

I think intervention is warranted but should be done under the UN banner. I'm sure Russia would be willing to give up Syria for the right price. It's a sinking ship anyway, and with Putin's bargaining abilities I'm sure he'll make a killing on it. Eh, pardon the pun.
Click to expand...
What could that price possibly be? What price would you accept? Turn it around and think what price the US would accept to cede Iraq to Russia, what price would the US accept to cede Afghanistan to Russia?

Anyway, a US strike almost has to happen before the Russian ships get to the region. Israel has already attacked Syria twice and so far they have gotten away with it, but we're getting down to the brink and we'll have to see who blinks.

Despite the no vote in the UK, British planes are heading into position. Perhaps if someone attacks a US ship (maybe someone who has attacked US ships before to try to start a war) then the UK will "have" to join in - and perhaps that's what they are hoping for. They certainly don't want to be left on the sidelines with the US getting all the spoils.
 
faethor said:
But, unless we're going to try to occupy and keep the peace there really is no point.
Click to expand...
Not keep the peace, keep the territory.

Though I do think a strong tongue lashing with a promise for an immediate strike should chemicals be used again should be issued from the USA unilaterally, if the UN can't handle that.
Click to expand...
All that does is GUARANTEE that the rebels will use chemical weapons. In fact, it seems that this has already happened. Obama gave that tongue lashing and then, just as the UN inspectors arrived to look at an old chemical weapons strike, a new chemical weapons strike happened just down the road with the lots of children being targeted. Does that sound like something the regime would do? And why attack children, not rebel fighters? Like Galloway says: it's not that the regime isn't BAD enough to do it, but are the MAD enough. Remember, militarily Assad is winning and retaking territory so why would he do the thing that would bring the US into the conflict when he has no military need to do it and every tactical need to NOT do it? Who gains from this attack?
 
faethor said:
In my opinion Obama won't go to war. It'll be a like Reagan's Libya drop a few bombs. Hopefully he'll still oppose a dumb war.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it's in his hands. He may just be preparing the ground so that he can come in after the fact if it happens and say "This is all part of my brilliant plan..."
His hand has possibly been forced and he's painted into a corner now. Not to strike is to instantly lose. If it looks like the US takes into account the will of other nations then it shows that they are not worlds sole hyperpower. It would be a victory for Russia and it would lead to a relatively rapid unwinding of the empire. That moment WILL come one day, but they are going to want to stave it off as long as they can.
 
Former French Foreign Minister relates hearing about plans to topple Syria overheard in the UK years ago.

And here's a comment posted under that video.

Actually it was started as protests for reform, but it was still instigated from the outside, and I'm syrian & I assure you that this wasn't "peaceful" at all. They literally burnt out police station screaming "peaceful" & the government didn't respond against those acts for about 3 days. President Assad also made the reforms, but the acts of violence continued and the opposition was bolstered by the west, Qatar & Saudi. You shouldve seen the massive media coverage in the arab world about this
Click to expand...
I can't verify it's provenance, the commenter’s page is rather sparse, but I'll post some more about what other Syrians have said in another post.
 
Currently, just about everyone is out, at least officially.

Here's a report that says an attack could commence on Saturday, but marks this as unlikely. If the US is going to strike then they really want to keep people guessing about when and where and for how long. If they can convey the impression of a limited strike then those that might intervene could be kept at bay because any response would be taken as an excuse to go to full out war. On the other hand, a "limited" strike that wasn't time limited would BE all out war and at a certain point the victim would have to respond if they were still able. Any response against a US vessel would be sufficient to commit NATO who are currently saying they don't have a role. Actually, an attack on Turkey would be enough to commit NATO and that way "no-one important" would get hurt.
 
Glaucus said:
I'm sure Russia would be willing to give up Syria for the right price.
Click to expand...

Current offer from the Saudis seems to be (carrot) we will pump less oil to keep the price up and (stick) we'll tell out Chechens not to mess with your Olympics. The Telegraph seems to take the leak seriously and so do others, and so far Bandar hasn't said anything about it. If a high level meeting like that did leak then it leaked from from someone very close to Putin, and certainly not without his permission. That would make it very difficult for others to approach him with confidential negotiating points so if it's real then Putin is saying he's not negotiating and anything you say will be used against you.

That's probably the right position to hold. I'm sure the US was hoping they would have toppled him by now. Perhaps he's remembering being offerd a deal to keep Syria if he let Libya go.

Besides, Putin doesn't need to count on the Saudis to keep the oil price up:

Mr Skrebowski said trouble is brewing in a string of key supply states. “Libya is reverting to war lordism. Nigerian is drifting into a bandit state with steady loss of output. And Iraq is going back to the sort of Sunni-Shia civil war we saw in 2006-2007,” he said.
Click to expand...

Furthermore the Saudis look like they need the oil price to stay high just as much as the Russians, perhaps more. Moreover, they may not be able to pump much more even if they wanted to, which makes this a somewhat empty offer.

That leaves the Chechen threat - which is interesting, because perhaps the Chechens have already been used to move another world leader. Now who is to say that Boston is the only US city with Chechens in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top