Hey, this is just like Bill Clinton showing the world how tough he is…by blowing up an aspirin factory in the Sudan.
A meaningless gesture, signifying impotence and frustration.
Seed thought: "What if Assad fires off a chemical armed warhead right after a conventional armed cruise missile lands on Syrian soil and says, “oh no” “your cruise missile must have hit one of our warehouses storing chemical weapons causing a lot of serious damage to the local civilian population”
Assad: “Please send in the UN inspection team to see what President Obama’s “shot across the bow’s” clear warning has done”.
Now look who’s red line has been crossed, “Russia and Iran’s clear response to President Obama”
Obama you now have the “green weenie”
Some common sense at last. UK politicians have resisted being railroaded on this bogus warmongering bullshit - for now at least:
It was certainly a shock. It looked like the Commons was divided and unsure of itself and normally it will let the Government take the lead. But I think it’s ashamed of Iraq and so wanted to make a stand on principle. Wisely, I think.
The only positive way I can see the world (or US/France/Turkey) intervening in Syria is a full force invasion followed by partitioning the country into three parts, transfer of populations in order to create much more homogeneous Alawite, Kurdish and Shiite states (think 1948 India/Pakistan), followed by withdrawal of forces.
Here is the letter from In 1936, signed among others by Bashar Assad’s grandfather, begging France not to incorporate Alawites into Syria. I wish France listened:
“The condition of the Jews in Palestine is the strongest and most explicit evidence of the militancy of the Islamic issue vis-à-vis those who do not belong to Islam. These good Jews contributed to the Arabs with civilization and peace, scattered gold, and established prosperity in Palestine without harming anyone or taking anything by force, yet the Muslims declare holy war against them and never hesitated in slaughtering their women and children, despite the presence of England in Palestine and France in Syria.”
“Therefore we ask you to consider the dreadful and terrible fate that awaits the Alawites if they are forced to be annexed to Syria, when it will be free from the oversight of the Mandate, and it will be in their power to implement the laws that stem from its religion.”
I was relieved and impressed. It sounds as if there is still at least a little doubt about the chemical attacks.
In Washington, Obama and Sen. Feinstein have “seen the secret evidence” and are convinced we should strike. Has the US shared this same “secret evidence” with the UK? Interesting they aren’t as convinced.
Well, you know what happens when we assume, right? But otherwise, it’s quite clear that the idea is to make it expensive for Assad to use CWs, and not to try and bomb the CWs themselves.
Still one has to wonder… if Assad has CWs do we want to weaken his ability to control these CWs and thus facilitate the ability of Islamist opposition groups to obtain them? Anything we do to weaken his command and control capabilities is going to do that.
What we probably should do is send a message to Assad and tell him that Seal Team 6 is ready and waiting for his next use of CWs. We don’t care about weakening your military capability, we are going to kill you. Plain and simple.
I think you overestimate both the US intelligence capabilities (that is, where is Bashar Assad located at any given moment?) and the Seal Team 6 capabilities - they are not supermen.
Just thinking outside the box. I don’t condone assassination, but I’m just putting myself in Obama’s shoes and making the assumption that we have to “do something”, per his statements. Given that assumption that he has made weakening Assad’s control over his CWs is certainly not in the interest of the US, and we should tell him that. As I said earlier (or in the other thread) we apparently want him to go back to slaughtering his people by the 10s of thousands, like civilized rulers do. So let’s tell him when his neck in the noose and when it is not.
Thanks to someone on this forum turning me to this column by Pepe Escobar: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-04-290813.html
A much better suggestion, I think.
The Pentagon could always go for Plan B. A single Tomahawk costs at least US$1.5 million. Multiply that for 384. That’s not a great bang for your buck - because even if they all go humanitarian, the Bashar al-Assad government would still remain in place.
So why not drop planeloads of sexy, Pininfarina-designed Ferrari Californias? They retail for around $200.000. Imagine the frenzy among Assad elite forces struggling to seize the Big Prize, one among 2,000 Californias. With their eyes off the ball, the ‘‘rebels’’ could easily sneak in everywhere and take over Damascus. And perhaps even stage the victory parade on a fleet of photogenic Ferraris. Call that an improvement over Libya.
(g) mine
Pretty sure that is illegal. Yah it is war and all, but nonetheless the assassination of a foreign head of state, specifically without a declaration of war or even an AUMF. Under my war plan, we would scrupulously avoid killing (g)Assad, if only so that he could order the WMDs handed over, and perhaps be imprisoned later. Maybe exiled, or who knows, taking an optometry job or something.
That’s a good one!
So they say. If I ran into him at a cocktail party I wouldn’t give him any shit about it. Sometimes world events are best served by people giving up power, no? Speaking of which, who is wielding the power to make the decision this time? ISTM a zero-sum game, or close to it, so some group must be taking charge…
Ha! Way ahead of you there. Everyone involved is off the hook wrt to this vote AFAIC.
I’m glad they chose between ‘yes’ and ‘no’, without resorting to some bullshit hit-and-run attack in between.
Doncha wonder why it is fatally flawed? After all,
Is there, perhaps, more to the story than has been revealed thus far?
I still think, if it is a military solution you’re after, basically killing everyone would put your military in de-facto control of Syria’s WMDs.
That’s what I wonder about. Just how long before Al Qaeda takes possession of their portion of Syria’s chemical weapons? We’re deliberately facilitating that?
Well maybe they’re convinced but just don’t see the upside to taking sides in a civil war with a country where everybody hates them.
Or maybe they understood there is no ‘evidence’, just bullshit and an Imperial agenda. Just like there always is.
And if all those complaints from the rebels are true?
Assad is certainly capable of doing this.
As someone said, if you don’t trust what your own politicians are telling you, you can’t condone bombing the shit out of people.
As with Iraq; who’s accountable, who pays a price for getting things wrong? No one; it’s faceless , it’s unaccountable. It’s bullshit.
Simple: show me the trail.
And what about the atrocities the rebels are committing? will they be bombed too?
Bombing the chemical weapons also makes it more difficult to use them. But as you go on to say, bombing conventional targets isn’t going to help much either.
I don’t think the executive order against targeting heads of state for assassination has been rescinded (although it should be). This kind of operation would also involve American boots on the ground. And, as Terr says, it rarely winds up as neatly as it does in the movies.
Not to mention that it will either allow the rebels to win, in which case they will be beholden to Iran much more than the US, and will therefore hate us and begin state sponsorship of terrorism, or another successor to Assad to arise, who will hate us and begin state sponsorship of terrorism. And everyone will condemn the US for interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.
This is a situation wherein the best reasonably predictable outcome is not significantly better than the worst. Rebels win - bad, they’re Islamofascists. Assad wins - bad, he is a secular fascist.
Regards,
Shodan
Britain has showed good sense. They aren’t bombing Syria. I hope wiser men can talk Obama off this cliff. I can’t imagine anything more stupid than butting into Syria’s civil war. Especially when there’s so much evidence of Iranian support.
I’m old enough to remember the wars between Syria and Israel. The shelling of Israel from the Golan heights.
If Obama does something stupid there’s no doubt in my mind that Syria will attack Israel. The Iran and Assad’s supporters, the Hezbollah will attack from Lebanon. This thing will escalate out of anyone’s control very quickly.