Syria

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/index.html

Wednesday, July 23, 2003 Posted: 3:34 PM EDT (1934 GMT)

"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"

Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
i guess they're accounted for now, aren't they...
 
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-sending-warships-mediterranean-report-082257880.html

Russia will "over the next few days" be sending an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the Mediterranean as the West prepares for possible strikes against Syria, the Interfax news agency said on Thursday.

"The well-known situation shaping up in the eastern Mediterranean called for certain corrections to the make-up of the naval forces," a source in the Russian General Staff told Interfax.

"A large anti-submarine ship of the Northern Fleet will join them (the existing naval forces) over the next few days.

"Later it will be joined by the Moskva, a rocket cruiser of the Black Sea Fleet which is now wrapping up its tasks in the northern Atlantic and will soon begin a Transatlantic voyage towards the Strait of Gibraltar."

In addition, a rocket cruiser of the Pacific Fleet, the Varyag, will join the Russian naval forces in the Mediterranean this autumn by replacing a large anti-submarine ship.

However, the state-run RIA Novosti news agency cited a high-ranking representative of the naval command who said the changes to the country's forces in the region were not linked to the current tensions over Syria and called them "a planned rotation."
 
Okay, now THAT was funny!
I realize that the chances of this having an impact are EXTREMELY low. But the chance is even lower if nobody does anything. Instead we're going to let the powers-that-be march us into another military conflict that will only further enrich those same powers-that-be. OTOH, if the millions of Americans who are against taking military action spent a few moments clicking some buttons on the internet the White House would have to at least respond, if not change their proposed plan of attack.
I find it disheartening that we've become so complacent that it's too much trouble to click a few buttons on the internet. I get the apathy - I don't see any point in voting any more. But I can't completely give up...not yet at least. If I can't take 3 minutes out of my precious S2 activities to click buttons on some other website I might as well just lie down and die.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-us-action-send-assad-strong-signal-070923744.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — As the U.S. moved toward a possible military strike, President Barack Obama said even limited retaliation for Syria's alleged chemical weapons use would send a "strong signal" to its vulnerable government. The administration scrambled Thursday to convince Congress members and international allies of the case against Syrian President Bashar Assad.

New hurdles appeared to be slowing the formation of an international coalition behind military action to punish Assad for the suspected chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of civilians last week.

Russia blocked British efforts to seek a resolution at the United Nations authorizing the use of force. British Prime Minister David Cameron said his country would hold off on joining any military efforts until a U.N. chemical weapons inspection team releases its findings. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the team is expected to complete its inspection Friday and report to him Saturday; they will share their conclusions with members of the Security Council, Ban said, but he didn't specify when that might happen.

"If any action would be taken against Syria it would be an international collaboration," Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reiterated Thursday. But the United States won't wait for U.N. backing to act, administration officials said.

The president said that while he had not settled on a response, the U.S. has concluded that Assad's government perpetrated a chemical weapons attack.

"And if that's so," Obama said during an interview with "NewsHour" on PBS, "then there need to be international consequences."

Obama did not present specific evidence to back up his assertion that the Assad regime is responsible for the Aug. 21 attack.

Many Congress members were pressing Obama to explain the need for military action and address fears that such a move might draw the U.S. deeper into the Syrian civil war. Both Democrats and Republicans were among lawmakers protesting that Obama hasn't made the case for a military strike, with some arguing that the president needs congressional authorization to order an attack.

U.S. officials were in search of additional intelligence to bolster the White House's case for a strike against Assad's military infrastructure. American intelligence intercepted lower-level Syrian military commanders' communications discussing the chemical attack, but the communications don't specifically link the attack to an official senior enough to tie the killings to Assad himself, according to three U.S. intelligence officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the intelligence publicly.

The administration was planning an intelligence teleconference briefing Thursday evening on Syria for leaders of the House and Senate and the national security committees in Congress, U.S. officials and congressional aides said.

The lineup for the call underscored the gravity of the matter. The briefers are Obama's national security adviser and intelligence chief, Susan Rice and James Clapper, alongside Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Hagel and Adm. James Winnefeld, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, congressional aides said.
View gallery."
People take part in a protest organized by the Stop …
People take part in a protest organized by the Stop the War coalition calling for no military attack …

Officials also said an unclassified version of the report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence would be made public this week.

The White House ideally wants intelligence that links the attack directly to Assad or someone in his inner circle, to rule out the possibility that a rogue element of the military decided to use chemical weapons without Assad's authorization.

That quest for added intelligence has delayed the release of the report laying out evidence against Assad. The report was promised earlier this week by administration officials.

The CIA and the Pentagon have been working to gather more human intelligence tying Assad to the attack, relying on the intelligence services of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Israel, the officials said.

Both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency have their own human sources — the rebel commanders and others who cross the border to brief CIA and defense intelligence officers at training camps in Jordan and Turkey. But their operation is much smaller than some of the other intelligence services, and it takes longer for their contacts to make their way overland.

Britain added a hurdle to deliberations about a military strike on Wednesday when it went to the U.N. Security Council with a draft resolution that would authorize the use of military force against Syria. The British resolution would authorize "all necessary measures under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter to protect civilians from chemical weapons." Chapter 7 allows the use of international armed force to back up U.N. decisions.

As expected, the five permanent members of the Security Council failed to reach an agreement as Russia reiterated its objections to international intervention in the Syrian crisis. Russia, along with China, has blocked past attempts to sanction the Assad government.

Obama said he was not seeking a lengthy, open-ended conflict in Syria, indicating that any U.S. response would be limited in scope. But he argued that Syria's use of chemical weapons not only violated international norms, but threatened "America's core self-interest."

"We do have to make sure that when countries break international norms on weapons like chemical weapons that could threaten us, that they are held accountable," he said.
 
Here we go again. No one denies that Iraq had WMDs before the inspectors had them destroyed in the 1990s. Reagan had given them to Iraq. That's the time period to which you refer.

Everyone (except you?) denies that Iraq had them in 2003, when Bush used that as his excuse to repair Daddy's legacy with the warmongers. The UN searched for a year, then the U.S. military spent a billion dollars searching for years. But you know this. You're just laughing that you're making us repeat it.

October 24, 2010

The recent release by WikiLeaks of classified Pentagon documents reveals that U.S. military intelligence discovered chemical weapons labs, encountered insurgents who were specialists in the creation of toxins, and uncovered weapons of mass destruction.

The latest WikiLeaks document dump reveals that as late as 2008, American troops continued to find WMD in the region.
....

WikiLeaks documents don't reveal evidence of a massive weapons program by Saddam Hussein — the Bush administration’s leading rationale for invading Iraq -- or some enormous stockpile of WMD, but do reveal that chemical weapons did vanish from the Iraqi battlefield.

According to the latest WikiLeaks document "dump," Saddam’s toxic arsenal, significantly reduced after the Gulf War, remained intact. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict and may have brewed up their own deadly agents, according to the WikiLeaks web site.

During that time, former Iraqi General Georges Sada, Saddam's top commander, detailed the transfers of Iraq's WMD. "There [were] weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

Gen. Sada's comments came just a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, claimed that Saddam Hussein "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."

In 2004, for example, American special forces members secretly purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard which have been used since World War I. Following testing in a military lab, the chemical was then secured and transferred to a secret location.

Meanwhile, also in Iraq, U.S. recon soldiers inspected a suspected “chemical weapons” plant:

“One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interested in trying to get into the bunkers.”

During the a battle in Fallujah, American forces claim they discovered a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there was a call in another part of the Fallujah requesting "explosives experts to dispose of a chemical[weapons] cache."

In addition, an armored vehicle came upon "155mm rounds filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/wikileaks-saddam-s-wmd-program-existed-iraq

The US gave Saddam over a month’s warning that we were coming to kick his
ass and take his WMDs.

There were reports at the time that Russian special forces helped move the WMDs to Syria.

An Iraqi general said that the WMD’s were moved to Syria.

An Israeli general said the WMD’s were moved to Syria.

WikiLeaks says there were WMDs found.

As Denny posted above, former President Clinton says there were WMD’s.

Now Syria (or the rebels, depending on who you think is telling the truth) is using the same kind of WMD’s on their own people.

So, no, I don’t think I’m the only one that thinks Saddam had WMD’s when we last invaded Iraq.

But you can continue to repeat that they didn’t exist if it makes you feel better.

Go Blazers
 
I wouldn't say the WMDs were moved, but it at least looks like Saddam fooled everyone into thinking he had them for whatever psychotic reasons...
 
I realize that the chances of this having an impact are EXTREMELY low. But the chance is even lower if nobody does anything. Instead we're going to let the powers-that-be march us into another military conflict that will only further enrich those same powers-that-be. OTOH, if the millions of Americans who are against taking military action spent a few moments clicking some buttons on the internet the White House would have to at least respond, if not change their proposed plan of attack.
I find it disheartening that we've become so complacent that it's too much trouble to click a few buttons on the internet. I get the apathy - I don't see any point in voting any more. But I can't completely give up...not yet at least. If I can't take 3 minutes out of my precious S2 activities to click buttons on some other website I might as well just lie down and die.
It's not apathy, it's not complacency, it's not too much trouble. It's the fact that anyone on the planet believes that an online petition will have ANY impact on decisions made by the President. The more I think about it, the more terrified I get for the future of this country...
 
It's not apathy, it's not complacency, it's not too much trouble. It's the fact that anyone on the planet believes that an online petition will have ANY impact on decisions made by the President. The more I think about it, the more terrified I get for the future of this country...
Generally I agree with you about petitions. However, We The People was set up by the White House* and according to the rules a response is REQUIRED once a petition reaches a specific number of signatures. Sure, I get it, a response doesn't mean they'll do as requested. But it's at least being SEEN by the White House. And IF millions of people signed it it would be a strong message.
What I don't get is how millions of people will change their Facebook icons to "support" a cause, even though that doesn't do ANYTHING. But signing a petition, which at least has some amount of legitimacy and "power", is unable to garner more than a few thousand signatures.
Yeah, I'm pretty terrified about the future of this country too...and the world. It's already a pretty disgusting place and it's only getting worse. And there's very little at our disposal to affect meaningful change. So the fall-back is apathy.

*No, I don't trust the White House, Congress, or the Senate to act in the peoples' interest - regardless of which party is in "control".
 
I realize that the chances of this having an impact are EXTREMELY low. But the chance is even lower if nobody does anything. Instead we're going to let the powers-that-be march us into another military conflict that will only further enrich those same powers-that-be. OTOH, if the millions of Americans who are against taking military action spent a few moments clicking some buttons on the internet the White House would have to at least respond, if not change their proposed plan of attack.
I find it disheartening that we've become so complacent that it's too much trouble to click a few buttons on the internet. I get the apathy - I don't see any point in voting any more. But I can't completely give up...not yet at least. If I can't take 3 minutes out of my precious S2 activities to click buttons on some other website I might as well just lie down and die.

Out of curiousity, what do you think the country should do? Because on the surface it would seem a little ironic that someone criticizing people for apathy and complacency, wants the U.S.'s response to be apathy and complacency in regards to the use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians, hundreds of kids included.

But I'm sure you're not actually encouraging the most powerful country in the world to be apathetic of human rights violations, I know it's not that black and white. So I wonder what your solution might be to ensure this doesn't continue to happen? And it will, if there is no international response.
 
Out of curiousity, what do you think the country should do?

Avoid being sucked into WWIII

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/502159/20130829/doomsday-syria-u-s-facebook-israel-soldiers.htm

Syrian authorities led by President Bashar Assad and its ally nations led by nuclear-hot Iran have made it clear from the start that they will not back out from a U.S. strike and will launch corresponding retaliatory attacks to U.S.-ally nations, beginning with Israel.
 
Out of curiousity, what do you think the country should do? Because on the surface it would seem a little ironic that someone criticizing people for apathy and complacency, wants the U.S.'s response to be apathy and complacency in regards to the use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians, hundreds of kids included.

But I'm sure you're not actually encouraging the most powerful country in the world to be apathetic of human rights violations, I know it's not that black and white. So I wonder what your solution might be to ensure this doesn't continue to happen? And it will, if there is no international response.
I think we should stand back and let there BE an INTERNATIONAL response. Let the EU take the lead on this. Maybe impose some sort of sanctions. Heck - I could even understand being clandestinely involved, with a very few number of agents in the area that would be able to carry out a targeted hit if necessary. But that's as far as WE should take it. We certainly shouldn't be using our military.
We need to stop meddling in other countries affairs when (a) we don't fully understand what the outcomes of our meddling will be and (b) we don't have our own domestic affairs in order.
And I'm sorry but the whole "WMD", "innocent civilians" excuse is a bunch of bullshit. We routinely kill innocent civilians in "targeted" air strikes. But because the chemical compound used in those air strikes is merely an explosive agent it's supposedly ok?
Basically, this isn't our fight. We don't need to come up with a solution - it's not our problem to solve. And we've routinely shown that when we try to solve other countries problems we generally make things worse. We need to stop policing the world - it's largely why we're so hated around the globe.
 
My sense is Obama's looking for a response for response's sake. Invent an objective and try to meet it because of the line in the sand thing.
 
My sense is Obama's looking for a response for response's sake. Invent an objective and try to meet it because of the line in the sand thing.
Yup. An imaginary line in the sand. Who cares about the 100k of people killed? But because 1k were killed with a slightly different type of weapon now we get to flex our military muscle for the whole world to see!
 
My sense is Obama's looking for a response for response's sake. Invent an objective and try to meet it because of the line in the sand thing.

yeah, he is looking for a way to save face, and that is all.

we really should tak MaxiePs POV and send both sides bullets, sit back and eat popcorn
 
At most, I think no fly zones are what anyone should do. If they're delivering the gas by aircraft, shoot it down.
 
My sense is Obama's looking for a response for response's sake. Invent an objective and try to meet it because of the line in the sand thing.

The nice thing about a line in the sand is that the wind can blow and erase that line. Then you just draw a new one in a new location.
 
The problem in Syria is the problem across the Arab world. There is a civil war that needs to occur and putting a cap on it simply increases the pressure.

At some point in time, we need to focus on being energy independent, support Israel as strongly as we can, keep the Suez open and let them settle it. The Arab world seems to have a death wish. Far be it from us to stop them.
 
Out of curiousity, what do you think the country should do? Because on the surface it would seem a little ironic that someone criticizing people for apathy and complacency, wants the U.S.'s response to be apathy and complacency in regards to the use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians, hundreds of kids included.

But I'm sure you're not actually encouraging the most powerful country in the world to be apathetic of human rights violations, I know it's not that black and white. So I wonder what your solution might be to ensure this doesn't continue to happen? And it will, if there is no international response.

It's a civil war. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care, or make arrangements for refugees, or finding ways to help out on the humanitarian side, but butting our noses into every conflict in the world is a losing proposition. No one ordained the U.S. to be the world's policeman.
 
A different question on the same subject.

What exactly was wrong with Assad as president of the country? I mean before the civil war started.
 
A different question on the same subject.

What exactly was wrong with Assad as president of the country? I mean before the civil war started.

Based on the way Syria is tearing itself apart, I'd say he wasn't universally beloved.
 
Based on the way Syria is tearing itself apart, I'd say he wasn't universally beloved.

Most of the negatives against him seem to have come about due to the civil war, but not a cause of the war.

Syria has at least seemed stable for decades. Until Iraq and a flood of refugees went to Syria.
 
Most of the negatives against him seem to have come about due to the civil war, but not a cause of the war.

Syria has at least seemed stable for decades. Until Iraq and a flood of refugees went to Syria.

Well ... just like Iraq, it was parceled out from the Sykes-Picot agreement and had all of the same arbitrary political divisions that forced lots of dissimilar groups together with hundreds of years of bad blood. I have little doubt that the Iraqi refugees were a catalyst, but the "powder" has been there for nearly a hundred years.
 
Most of the negatives against him seem to have come about due to the civil war, but not a cause of the war.

Syria has at least seemed stable for decades. Until Iraq and a flood of refugees went to Syria.

Isn't it amazing how stable a fascist regime can appear from the outside?
 
Well ... just like Iraq, it was parceled out from the Sykes-Picot agreement and had all of the same arbitrary political divisions that forced lots of dissimilar groups together with hundreds of years of bad blood. I have little doubt that the Iraqi refugees were a catalyst, but the "powder" has been there for nearly a hundred years.

Ok, but Saddam had prisons full of political enemies, torture chambers, was militaristic, invaded neighboring countries, fought a prolonged war with Iran, and was evil.

Syria sent troops into Lebanon, but not for conquest, and I'm pretty sure the troops didn't stay very long. I'm not seeing the evil, he must be overthrown part.

Look at the USA. We send in the military to arrest the Boston Marathon bomber, and there was plenty of gunfire. Imagine if we had a disorderly uprising.
 
Ok, but Saddam had prisons full of political enemies, torture chambers, was militaristic, invaded neighboring countries, fought a prolonged war with Iran, and was evil.

Syria sent troops into Lebanon, but not for conquest, and I'm pretty sure the troops didn't stay very long. I'm not seeing the evil, he must be overthrown part.

Look at the USA. We send in the military to arrest the Boston Marathon bomber, and there was plenty of gunfire. Imagine if we had a disorderly uprising.

I never said Assad must be overthrown, but that doesn't change the fact that ruling Ba'athist regime under the first Assad and now the son aren't brutal and repressive. However, the way I view that regime is immaterial when it comes to what I think the U.S. response should be. I think we should stay the fuck out and mind our own business unless this civil war spills over its borders and directly threatens our allies in the region.
 
What example of brutal and repressive pre 2007 arab spring do you have?

I agree we should stay out.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top