US may be alone in attack on Syria

Increasing opposition in the UK Parliament:

Cameron relies on his partners in the LibDems for his majority. The coalition agreement does not cover Syria and the LibDems are temperamentally against intervention. Labour is insisting on no action before the UN investigation reports, and there are at least 30 Conservative dissenters.


Arab Allies Withhold Public Support for U.S. Strike on Syria

Even Israel did not express support (or objection, for that matter) for the coming US attack on Syria.

Seems like it’s going to be US, France and Turkey.

Latest news on the BBC. Tomorrow’s vote will be on the principle only. Another vote next week will be necessary before any British assets are deployed.

Looks like Cameron is facing reality and democracy. The opinion polls seem to show reluctance to attack also and UKIP (a right wing party preying on the Conservative vote) are firmly against intervention.

BBC now reporting 70 plus Conservative doubters!

Waitaminnit, why should we have to go it alone, when both Turkey and the entire Arab League minus Syria are on record as wanting Assad gone?

THink the Nobel Peace Prize committee is having second thoughts about now?

They gave Obama an award for no other reason than the fact that he wasn’t George W. Bush. But as it turns out, he’s no peacenik.

And Henry Kissinger was?

Quite the contrary. Bush, at least, was pretty open about what he was going to do – right or wrong didn’t enter into his thinking, but rather black or white.

Obama, meanwhile, has shrouded himself with a bunch of shady laws and double-speak in order to continue Bush’s thirst for blood.

This is yet one more example, a “Punitive War” with no other objective that “making a point,” since his infamous red-line comments on Syria.

Sickens me that I honestly believed that “Change You Can Believe In” slogan. More like “Meet the New Boss, Same As The Old Boss. Just lots more cagey”

Does it sicken you that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people as well? Or do you not believe that he did? Just curious, no gotcha here.

Basically, I disagree that Obama is just like Bush, or that this is comparable to Iraq in any way, shape or form. I’m not for this, mind…I think it’s a mistake for us to get involved in this conflict and I don’t see how any good can come of it (especially any good for the US). But I thought Libya was a huge mistake as well, and yet Obama handled that as well as it could have been handled, so maybe he knows what he’s doing here too. Not that I have much choice, but I’m disposed to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one…I think he’s earned at least that much. Maybe this will turn out all right. And maybe it will make the next idiot dictator a little less willing to reach for the chemical weapons hammer if he thinks someone might actually do something (besides meaninglessly denounce him to the international community or call him bad names).

As for going it alone, I doubt we will, but honestly…meh. It’s not like the Europeans would be a huge amount of help even if they were totally for it (I think the French will end up doing something, though not sure how substantial their help will be). Turkey COULD be a lot of help, especially with basing and logistics support. The Arab League could give us at least a fig leaf of justification, though I’m not thinking that’s going to happen. Other than that, assuming we were going to do this anyway, the realty is that we’d be carrying most of the water…as usual. It’s more moral support of the ‘international community’ actually banding together to do something about some asshole using chemical weapons on his population that would be the most meaningful support we could get.

Fat chance of that…

I’m getting a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach over this, just the way I did in 2003.

Dear President Obama: Please GO SLOW!

Why oh why did you and Kerry “draw a line in the sand”?

If the Arab League, the UN and even the ‘coalition of the willing’ aren’t willing, don’t you think they have good reasons?

Yes, Assad is a bad man. So was Saddam. Getting rid of a bad man does not ensure a good result.

Please reconsider.

The power in the UN resides in the UNSC…and, as usual, they are at diametrically opposed sides. Since it takes a unanimous vote for the permanent members (US, UK, France, Russia and China), there is nothing binding that could or would ever be done with Russia (and probably China) opposed. As for the Arab League, there is zero chance of them banding together to support the US in an attack on one of their own members, regardless of how they really think. Their own radical populations would explode if they did anything like that and they would be in a similar boat to Assad…so, aside from the above they wouldn’t want to set that precedence when it could easily be them in the hot seat next time. So, these aren’t good reasons for the US to not do something on this. Just saying.

Nah. That was really an award to the American people, just for rejecting the Republicans in 2008. And we deserved it just for that.

Turkey is willing to back up military response. Arabs are on record not wanting a military “solution”.

Pjen is getting very excited.

But this latest Syrian atrocity will make him change his tune.

I guess it depends on how one defines “alone”. Clearly, Obama has the support of the British Prime Minister and the French President. I’m not even sure our own Congress would vote in favor of an attack, so the fact that Parliament isn’t keen on the attack isn’t all that compelling.

Not that I support such an attack-- I don’t. But let’s not pretend that Obama is the only guy out there calling for some action to be taken.

And now we observe the problem if a country (or an individual) is proven to be a liar. Someday you may need someone to believe you. Never sell your integrity too cheaply, you don’t get any change back for that coin, it’s all or nothing.

I actually do not think our intervention in the Syrian mess wise. However I have had fears in recent days that when the administration [I now the President himself has not used the term] said the “red line” thing it would be dangerous to our future credibility to not act in response to the line being crossed. I have also felt that any sort of rules or such against the use of chemical weapons we want to present as important are only important if we actually enforce them. At the same time, I really don’t want my country engaged in Syria.

You have countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar spending huge amounts of money to topple Assad, but they won’t come out and publicly support a bombing.

You have countries like Germany (and now apparently the UK) saying “something must be done” but not wanting to participate in the bombing or support the bombing.

That leads me to say we can actually avoid this mess by turning it back on the same people who will most complain about our inaction. Simply issue a statement that, “out of respect for the interests of countries in the region, we will take no action against the Syrian regime absent a resolution by the Arab League or a majority of NATO.” At that point if the countries in those organizations would like to continue bitching about the United States we’ve laid the groundwork for them to remove the block to our action, if not–we can happily continue to not get in that quagmire.

Sadly I do not see our administration utilizing this ploy, I think the administration is slowly rolling down the hill towards cruise missile strikes and due to administration inertia they won’t back down now.