Damascus gas attack

[Spurs da champs]

Foreign Policy reporting that intercepted phone calls are the "proof" Assad carried out the attack http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...used_nerve_gas

That's a bit misleading, the le is:

"Exclusive: Intercepted Calls Prove Syrian Army Used Nerve Gas, U.S. Spies Say"

Still no proof that Assad or any of his Commanders ordered a "chemical attack" let alone conducted one!

[symple19]

Foreign Policy is an excellent example of a credible source.

Yep. Its staff is littered with former officials from various administrations.

At this point I believe the attack came from the Assad side due to the the reports I've read. There's also this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...al-attack.html

Fuzzy, here's a good opinion piece on what the Obama administration may have planned for Syria. Makes a lot of sense http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rise-in-syria/

Still, I don't agree with the decision, if it's been made, to use force. I also continue to believe that the rebels are capable of committing atrocities against innocents if it will further their goals.

[Spurs da champs]

How surprising:

[symple19]

That's a bit misleading, the le is:

"Exclusive: Intercepted Calls Prove Syrian Army Used Nerve Gas, U.S. Spies Say"

Still no proof that Assad or any of his Commanders ordered a "chemical attack" let alone conducted one!

True, basically hearsay, but thats about as good as we're (the public) going to get right now. I don't have much faith in the Obama administration, but with the unified front being presented by western nations and the UN, it stands to reason that the intel is pretty ing solid. France being so vocal in support is a big indicator.

Of course, as I've said repeatedly, it's still idiotic to use force and deepen our involvement

[angrydude]

As for the nerve gas claim from before there are two sources which were reported in newspapers world wide

Washington times quoting UN official

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...t-assads-regi/

Yahoo quoting Russian officials
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-syrian-...165341940.html

But of course you're better off believing the US media which was 100% sure there were WMDs in Iraq and clearly don't want to go to war this time.

[Spurs da champs]

"Suspected" does not mean guilty, Saddam was "suspected" of having weapons of mass destruction; we all know how that turned out. Their is no smoking gun to indicate the Assad govt orchestrated the attacks, just a sad case of wishful thinking on part of the west.

True, basically hearsay, but thats about as good as we're (the public) going to get right now. I don't have much faith in the Obama administration, but with the unified front being presented by western nations and the UN, it stands to reason that the intel is pretty ing solid. France being so vocal in support is a big indicator.

Of course, as I've said repeatedly, it's still idiotic to use force and deepen our involvement

The same was said in 2003:



With western support (especially the reliable U.K) might I add.

[symple19]

Just going off what is available. I don't wear a tin hat, and am more than happy to say I was wrong if compelling evidence surfaces that the rebels were behind the most recent gas attack, which is what's being discussed here

Do yourselves a favor and go read my post on the first page of the war monger thread that koolaidman started. It clearly establishes my position on this

Also, using meme's to back up your arguments is weak as . So is posting from wikileaks that's two years old. Calm down, i'm basically on the same side of this as you are

[Spurs da champs]

I'm not attacking you (tho it would help if you weren't so gullible) & the meme just further illustrates the similarity with Iraq & now Syria, all hearsay with no conclusive evidence yet " ing solid intel" from the West. This has to be questionable, to just assume that Assad used chemical weapons because the Media is telling you so isn't a thorough way of thinking & so narrow minded. The Wikileaks link is also relevant because the U.S has been planning this for 2 damn years!

[TDMVPDPOY]

alqaeda aka freedom fighters aka outsourced by america govt to start civil wars to profit...costs cheaper then blackwater mercenaries...

[Wild Cobra]

"Suspected" does not mean guilty, Saddam was "suspected" of having weapons of mass destruction; we all know how that turned out. Their is no smoking gun to indicate the Assad govt orchestrated the attacks, just a sad case of wishful thinking on part of the west.



The same was said in 2003:



With western support (especially the reliable U.K) might I add.

You forgot the reliable intel that said Iraqs weapons went into Syria.

[TeyshaBlue]

There are almost 200 nations on this planet.

Let's take a pass on this one.

[TDMVPDPOY]

assad outcome will be like the clowns b4 him who fell for the bait

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not attacking you (tho it would help if you weren't so gullible) & the meme just further illustrates the similarity with Iraq & now Syria, all hearsay with no conclusive evidence yet " ing solid intel" from the West. This has to be questionable, to just assume that Assad used chemical weapons because the Media is telling you so isn't a thorough way of thinking & so narrow minded. The Wikileaks link is also relevant because the U.S has been planning this for 2 damn years!

In Iraq they never found found WMD from the moment the inspectors started looking. They made stupid theories avbout mobile labs.

In this case they have bodies, tissue, urine, blood, etc samples. Doctor testimony and all manner of proof. Even the Iranians and Russians do not dispute that gas was used. They say they gassed themslelves which is on the level of trucks carrying labs.

Further it should be little surprise that we would try and facilitate regime change in a country that is hostile to our allies in Israel and the Saudis, an ally to our enemiy in Iran as well as being a pipeline to Hezbollah which contributes in no small way to the instability in Lebanon and Palestine. To act as if this is some startling revalation is downright naive especially given the historical context of US foreign policy over the last 70 years. If you want to rail against said policy, our choice of allies etc then discuss that but it should be plain as day what are intentions have been in that region to anyone paying a whit of attention.

Further I would add that lumping all sources that he is using to form his opinion as 'the media' just goes to show how narrowminded your position is. All I see you doing here is using confirmation bias and limited sources to come to your conclusion just as you lump everyone else into some monolith that you feel fine with using a blanket dismissal.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yep. Its staff is littered with former officials from various administrations.

At this point I believe the attack came from the Assad side due to the the reports I've read. There's also this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...al-attack.html

Fuzzy, here's a good opinion piece on what the Obama administration may have planned for Syria. Makes a lot of sense http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rise-in-syria/

Still, I don't agree with the decision, if it's been made, to use force. I also continue to believe that the rebels are capable of committing atrocities against innocents if it will further their goals.

I'm on the fence. A regime change would probably result in another Sunni state and with the rise of the Salafi, I don't like how that portends. A sunni hegemony in the western part of the region is troubling.

At the same time they are a conduit for Hezbollah and that is problematic. Shia is not that much better. Also the use of chemical weapons without reprecussions is not a good precedant to allow.

[Clipper Nation]

I think Mitt would have been more pragmatic on what the US could and could not accomplish on foreign policy.

[SA210]

I remember years ago when forum morons laughed when I posted this lol

[boutons_deux]

"I think Mitt would have been more pragmatic on what the US could and could not accomplish on foreign policy."

Like he knew what he could and could not accomplish with SLC Olympics without begging for federal money.

Mitt wouldn't stand up to anybody in the MIC. But he'd tough as nails standing up to any attempt to regulate, tax, restrain the financial sector.

[lefty]

alqaeda aka freedom fighters aka outsourced by america govt to start civil wars to profit...costs cheaper then blackwater mercenaries...

froof bombs

[rascal]

I'm really starting to like Obama. You young healthy liberals will have to buy health insurance now which will subsidize my older employees...I can drop health coverage and give them an "Obamacare bonus" and still put 40K more a year in my pocket...and the more he s up in North Africa and the Middle East the higher oil prices go and the better the South Texas economy does and the more money I make. I realize that long term it will up the US economy bad but my kids and grandkids will be set and it's just you liberal heads in dead end jobs voting for this that will take it in the ass.

I am still not buying health insurance.

[Wild Cobra]

I remember years ago when forum morons laughed when I posted this lol

You are such a tool...


His story isn't completely accurate.

October 31, 1998 U.S. President Bill Clinton had signed into law H.R. 4655. It takes time to decide how to act on something, 9/11 pushed the timeline to being real.

Link to Clinton declaring war on Iraq: H.R.4655 -- Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)

H.R.4655
Latest le: Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
Sponsor: Rep Gilman, Benjamin A. [NY-20] (introduced 9/29/1998) Cosponsors (1)
Related Bills: H.R.4664, S.2525
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 105-338 [GPO: Text, PDF]ALL ACTIONS: (Floor Actions/Congressional Record Page References)

9/29/1998:
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.

10/2/1998:
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
10/2/1998:
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, (Amended) by Voice Vote.

10/1/1998:
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1857)
10/5/1998 6:12pm:
Mr. Gilman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
10/5/1998 6:12pm:
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H9486-9494)
10/5/1998 6:12pm:
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
10/5/1998 6:54pm:
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule I, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
10/5/1998 7:26pm:
Considered as unfinished business.
10/5/1998 7:33pm:
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 360 - 38 (Roll No. 482).
10/5/1998 7:33pm:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
10/6/1998:
Received in the Senate, read twice.
10/7/1998:
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S11811-11812)
10/7/1998:
Cleared for White House.
10/8/1998:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
10/20/1998:
Presented to President.
10/31/1998:
Signed by President.
10/31/1998:
Became Public Law No: 105-338.

[SA210]

You are such a tool...


His story isn't completely accurate.

October 31, 1998 U.S. President Bill Clinton had signed into law H.R. 4655. It takes time to decide how to act on something, 9/11 pushed the timeline to being real.

Link to Clinton declaring war on Iraq: H.R.4655 -- Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)

Clark was right on their plans. I know you're mad that I brought up Bush, but I'm not a Clinton fan either if that makes you feel any better.

How could anyone forget Clinton being responsible for half a million Iraqi children deaths? Ooops, I wonder why they hate us..

[Wild Cobra]

Clark was right on their plans. I know you're mad that I brought up Bush, but I'm not a Clinton fan either if that makes you feel any better.

How could anyone forget Clinton being responsible for half a million Iraqi children deaths? Ooops, I wonder why they hate us..

Clark is a fool too.

[Th'Pusher]

Breaking news: Obama to ask congress for approval.


He boxed himself in a door Ed with the redline jargon. Will congress bail him out?

[boutons_deux]

Breaking news: Obama to ask congress for approval.

He boxed himself in a door Ed with the redline jargon. Will congress bail him out?

great news

Obama tripped over his own red line, and now red-state tea baggers will help him get up and step back by voting against Obama

(they will NOT be voting against bombing. All Tea Bagger Extremist Obstructionist Purist Politics, All The Time.)