Middle East landscape rapidly changing

[Itchy]

How about answering the few questions now Seafood?

[seafoid]

How about answering the few questions now Seafood?

Give me the questions.
I wonder how you're so sure about everything, Itchy.

[trileacman]

How about answering the few questions now Seafood?

Give me the questions.
I wonder how you're so sure about everything, Itchy.

I gave you questions and you dodged them all.

[Itchy]

I asked the question at least 3 times. If you read some of the other posts on here instead of pasting in newspaper articles then maybe there would be debate.

[seafoid]

I asked the question at least 3 times. If you read some of the other posts on here instead of pasting in newspaper articles then maybe there would be debate.

What is your problem with newspaper articles?
Do only RTE views count?

[seafoid]

You dodged the 1st question but I'm tired of asking.

I find your 2nd suggestion devoid of reasoning or evidence, disputed by several of the world's observers on the issue, independent or otherwise. A larger body of evidence would suggest members of the Assad regime are the more likely offenders IMO. That said there is no specifically conclusive proof at this time to rule out either scenario.

Having said all that I maintain my previous point, that when the Palestinians civilians were bombarded with shells we were told by many on this site something must be done. I agreed.

Now the women and children of Syria suffer bombardment with chemical weapons and the men who told us to save the Palestinians tell us we should do nothing. It is hypocrisy and is echoed in the halls of power the world over.

We will do nothing, because it's easier than doing something.

Fair points but I don't think bombing Syria is the answer.
Brzenzinski above says a peace conference involving India, Japan and China (the main consumers of Middle East oil) might be the best way forward.
Bombing Syria will not help ordinary Syrians.
If the government were replaced by warlords it would be the equivalent  of handing Limerick over to the
McCarthy Dundons.
We will do nothing because we do not want to do the necessary. That means standing up to the drivers of this war- KSA, the Gulf States and Israel. 

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.544607#

 
"An exercise in honesty (and double standards): What would happen If Israel were to use chemical weapons? Would the United States also say to attack it? And what would happen if the United States itself used such measures? True, Israel would never use weapons of mass destruction, although they are in its arsenal, except under very extreme circumstances. But it has already used weapons prohibited by international law - white phosphorous and flechette rounds against a civilian population in Gaza, and cluster munitions in Lebanon - and the world did not raise a finger. And few words are needed to describe the weapons of mass destruction used by the United States, from the nuclear bombs in Japan to napalm in Vietnam.

But Syria, of course is a different matter. After all, no one can seriously think that an American attack on the President Bashar Assad regime stems from moral considerations. Some 100,000 killed in that unfortunate country did not coax the world into action, and only the report of 1,400 killed by chemical weapons - which has not yet been conclusively proven - are rousing the world's salvation army to act.

Neither can anyone suspect that most Israelis who support an attack – 67 percent, according to a survey by the daily Israel Hayom – are motivated by concern for the well-being of Syria's citizens. In perhaps the only country in the world where a majority of public opinion supports an attack, the guiding principle is completely foreign: Strike the Arabs; it doesn't matter why, it just matters how much – a lot.

Neither can anyone seriously think that the United States is a "moral superpower," as Ari Shavit defined it in these pages (August 29). The country responsible for the most bloodshed since World War II – some say as many as 8 million dead at its hands – in Southeast Asia, South America, Afghanistan and Iraq – cannot be considered a "moral power." Neither can the country in which a quarter of the world's prisoners are incarcerated; where the percentage of prisoners is greater than in China and Russia; and where 1,342 people have been executed since 1976. Even Shavit's statement "The new international order in the wake of World War II was meant to ensure that ... the horrific scenario of death by gassing would not be repeated," is disconnected from reality. In Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Rwanda and Congo, as in Syria, this baseless claim can only arouse a bitter smile.

The attack on its way will be Iraq II. The United States - which was never punished for the lies of Iraq I and the hundreds of thousands who died in vain in that war - says a similar war should be launched. Once again without a smoking gun, with only partial evidence, and with red lines that President Barack Obama himself drew, and now he is obliged to keep his word. In Syria, a cruel civil war is underway that the world must try to stop; the American attack will not do it.

Reports from Syria are apparently mainly tendentious. No one knows what exactly is going on, or the identity of the good guys and the bad guys, if they can be thus defined. We should listen to the sharp words of a nun from Syria, Sister Agnes-Mariam de la Croix, who complained to me over the weekend - from the Jerusalem monastery where she is staying on her way back from Malaysia to Syria - about the world press. Sister Agnes-Mariam described the picture differently than most: There are some 150,000 foreign jihadists in Syria, she says, and they are responsible for most of the atrocities. The Assad regime is the only one that can stop them, and the only thing the world must do is stop the flow of fighters and arms to them. "I don't understand what the world wants. To help Al-Qaida? To establish a jihadist state in Syria?" This mother superior, whose monastery is located along the road from Damascus to Homs, is certain that an American strike will only strengthen the jihadists. "That is what the world wants? Another Afghanistan?"

Perhaps the world knows what it wants, perhaps it doesn't. But one thing now seems clear: another American attack of choice could become another disaster.
"

[Itchy]

Interesting question, what would the us do if Israel used chemical weapons? Another interesting question, would Seafood say we should leave them to it if Israel fired Sarin into Gaza killing thousands. What you reckon Seafood?

[muppet]

Interesting question, what would the us do if Israel used chemical weapons? Another interesting question, would Seafood say we should leave them to it if Israel fired Sarin into Gaza killing thousands. What you reckon Seafood?

Do you think the US would suggest targeted strikes then?

[Itchy]

Interesting question, what would the us do if Israel used chemical weapons? Another interesting question, would Seafood say we should leave them to it if Israel fired Sarin into Gaza killing thousands. What you reckon Seafood?

Do you think the US would suggest targeted strikes then?

Probably not but my position would be consistent and I certainly would expect intervention of some type. I bet Seafood would too because he is a few total hypocrite.

[seafoid]

Israel's involvement, especially for Itchy, but it's only a newspaper article unfortunately


http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.544594

Israel and lobby likely to get embroiled in Congress debate on Syria
Obama's decision to seek authorization for military attack could humiliate him or strengthen his hand, but the Administration may urge Israel-supporters to get off the fence.
By Chemi Shalev | Sep. 1, 2013 | 1:41 AM |  7
      

An anti-Assad protester holds a picture of the Syrian president during a march in demand for US attacks on Syria in front of the White
United States President Barack Obama on Saturday made his most convincing and impassioned argument to date about the need for an American military attack against Syria, as he was consigning it in practice to limbo, if not oblivion. The regime in Damascus heaved a sigh of relief while officials in Jerusalem pulled their hair in exasperation, though both reactions could prove premature.
By asking for authorization from Congress, Obama was transferring the question of the American response to the August 21 chemical carnage in Damascus from backroom strategic and diplomatic deliberations to the polarized, rough-and-tumble arena of open-air politics. He decided to share the onus of responsibility for dealing with what he described as the Syrian "assault on human dignity" with the representatives and senators who have been incessantly sniping at him without paying a political price.
I dare you, Obama is challenging his critics, to smear yourselves and America with the stain of isolationism and timidity.
Obama decided on this course when he found himself – through much fault of his own - with none of the prerequisites of international backing, public support or constitutional legitimacy that he had once chastised George W. Bush for ignoring. "The president does not have the power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," Obama said in 2007, as he waded into the complex and historic tug of war between the president and Congress over the power to wage wars.
Obama is obviously taking a risk that he will suffer a political defeat that will be even more humiliating than the one inflicted on David Cameron by the British House of Commons. But he could also be rewarded with a victory that would give him much more public and political backing – and thus greater military and diplomatic freedom of action – than he seems to have now.
Obama may have hemmed and hawed his way to this juncture – especially when compared to the rhetorical brilliance and conviction shown on Friday by Secretary of State John Kerry in his presentation of the damning evidence against the Assad regime – but political campaigns, contrary to military incursions, are the president's forte. He may be reluctant and hesitant when it comes to Syrian generals, but he is spoiling for a fight and full of surprises when it comes to his political rivals.
The stage has thus been set for a riveting political and public debate that will pit the two parties against each other and each within itself. It will mix and match the political with the constitutional, the strategic and the expedient, the loftily ideological and the blatantly personal. Instead of the war epic that everyone expected, a political thriller of high drama a la "House of Cards" will be played out before the American audience.
Democrats will be torn between their liberal idealism and their loyalty to the president, Republicans between their hawkish patriotism and their burning wish to cripple Obama, regardless of cost. If polarization prevails, the Democrat-controlled Senate will consent, the Republican-dominated House will oppose, Obama will have no mandate to act but he will be given a convenient scapegoat to blame. If lawmakers are allowed to vote their conscience, the campaign will see strange bedfellows and peculiar coalitions as leftist pacifists team up with Tea Party isolationists against moderate centrists and conservatives on both sides of the aisle.
In this showdown, Israel and the lobby that supports it may find themselves suddenly embroiled. Both have been careful to steer clear of taking sides and to appear neutral for fear of fueling Iraq War, Walt and Mearsheimer-style attacks that Israel and its doers in Washington were pushing America to go to war. But it is surely no coincidence that both Obama and Kerry have made a point of reiterating time and time again that in advocating a strong response to Syria, the U.S. is looking out for Israel and its interests, by preventing the proliferation of chemical weapons and by sending a strong signal to Iran about its nuclear plans.
Supporters of Israel will likely be told that at this critical juncture, neutrality is a luxury that neither the lobby nor the Administration can afford. Time to put up or shut up, get off the fence and spend some of the precious political capital that Israel supporters have amassed in order to fight in the Washington trenches for something that most Israelis contend is crucial to their national interests.

All right thinking people will understand Israel's involvement in the mess.

[seafoid]

http://mjayrosenberg.com/2013/09/01/obama-congress-must-approve-syria-raid-so-we-can-bomb-iran-for-netanyahu/


Obama: Congress Must Approve Syria Raid So We Can Bomb Iran For Netanyahu
1Sep
The New York Times has a pretty shocking revelation on page one today. White House correspondent Mark Landler reveals (after interviewing unnamed senior Obama aides) that the "most compelling " reason the President is seeking Congressional authorization to strike Syria may be this:
...acting alone would undercut him if in the next three years he needed Congressional authority for his next military confrontation in the Middle East, perhaps with Iran.
If he made the decision to strike Syria without Congress now, he said, would he get Congress when he really needed it?
In other words, attacking Syria now makes it possible to attack Iran later.
And there is this from POLITICO:  White House To Congress: Help Protect Israel
The Obama administration is using a time-tested pitch to get Congress to back military strikes in Syria: It will help protect Israel.  Israel's enemies, including Iran and the terrorist group Hezbollah, could be emboldened if Congress fails to approve action against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, senior administration officials said Saturday.
On the one hand, revealing this motivation will be a political plus with Congress which, following AIPAC (and the donors it directs), repeatedly and loudly declares that if Iran does not capitulate to Netanyahu's demands, it must be bombed.  Telling AIPAC and Netanyahu that Congressional authorization for bombing Syria  is a prerequisite for bombing Iran is a sure way to get the lobby to get its forces in line for a "yes" vote.
On the other hand, Obama signals to the American public at large that attacking Syria could turn out to be considerably larger than a single surgical strike. It could be the prelude to an infinitely larger war.
It is doubtful that public opinion will accept this rationale. More likely, it will lead to intense pressure from the grassroots to defeat the Syrian authorization. Americans  (in)famously supported a "war to end all wars." But supporting a war to start more wars seems unlikely.
Stopping a war with Syria is apparently the best way to prevent war with Iran. Congress needs to vote "no."

[johnneycool]

If the west does nothing Assad has the all clear to say fire 100 gas rockets at a rebel held town or city and kill 10's of thousands in one hit. What would the west do then? Tell him to work away. Right now doing nothing is not an option.

Itchy,
   If you're basing your facts on what you've read and saw in the mainstream press then you've not learned from the WMD debacle of the Iraq invasion.

Yes, people have been gassed, but what would Assad gain out of it? He was winning the 'conventional' war as it is and using gas was always going to bring on this international shit storm on top of him.
If he did do it, then there'd be no logic in his decision. Dictators of all kinds are survivors and will do what it takes to stay in power, this, if he's guilty of it, then will expedite the moves to oust him one way or another.

Its hard to know who to believe anymore.

[theskull1]

Its hard to know who to believe anymore.

That's mission 1 accomplished for the neocons. Let confusion and fear reign.

[stew]

Its hard to know who to believe anymore.

That's mission 1 accomplished for the neocons. Let confusion and fear reign.

WTF are you droning on about now? you do realize that in the US of A Obama, a liberal is in charge and spoiling for a fight, confusion and fear is used by conservatives and liberal, they are politicians after all.

Governments confuse and lie to the masses no matter the political leanings of it's politicans, take a look at your own country ffs!!!

[give her dixie]

British government allowed company to export nerve gas chemicals to Syria while civil war was raging

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/british-government-allowed-company-to-export-nerve-gas-chemicals-to-syria-while-civil-war-was-raging-29544498.html