I confess: if the Syrian army used gas against its own people, I think

[MannyGoldstein]

they should be taught a lesson. A serious, serious lesson.

The general ban on using chemical weapons, which has basically held for the best part of a century, is a good thing. Hopefully it can serve as a precedent for other weapons bans such as nukes, land mines, etc. One day, perhaps all weapons can be banned.

I'm fine with the US and its allies inflicting great pain on the Assad regime if they gassed heir own people. Not troops on the ground, not a war, but some sort of strike to let them know that we care. Bullies understand nothing less than a 2x4 to the head, as I learned growing up.

Here's the problem: I don't believe a #%*@ing word coming out of Washington, unless it comes from the mouth of a very select few. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Alan Grayson, perhaps Al Franken and Ron Wyden, and that's about it - let me know if I've forgotten any. The lying has become so flagrant and ubiquitous... well, I've never imagined that it would be like this, not in my country.

But here we are.

Who did it? Who knows. At this point, it could be Halliburton drumming up some business, for all we know.

[yourout]

1. That is one huge fucking "IF"....Like you I am sceptical as hell about this.

I could see this as an Isreali wag the dog operation.

[Agschmid]

41. That is wild CT. Not appropriate IMO.

[BainsBane]

47. Doctors without Borders has reported 355 deaths from nerve gas

It's been reported on Al Jazeera. There is video footage of the attacks.

[leveymg]

51. That's a red-herring. The question is who not if a gas attack occurred.

[BainsBane]

52. Who besides Assad could do that?

[leveymg]

53. Most likely - chemical weapons used by opposition and blamed on the regime, as occurred here:

Syria's Civil War: The Mystery Behind a Deadly Chemical Attack ...
world.time.com/ http://world.time.com/2013/04/01/syrias-civil-war-the-mystery-behind-a-deadly-chemical-attack/
Apr 1, 2013 - And as the owner of Syria's only chlorine-gas manufacturing plant, Sabbagh ... the Syrian government and the opposition traded accusations.

and here:

U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas: investigator
GENEVA | Sun May 5, 2013 6:13pm EDT http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505

(Reuters) - U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.

[BainsBane]

55. This was nerve gas, not sarin or chlorine

and why would you say "most likely opposition"? Assad is and always has been a brutal dictator. He will do anything to hold on to power. Other than the fact you don't want the US to be involved, why would you say it is more likely the opposition? Clearly, their capability is far less than that of Assad.

[leveymg]

57. Read the second report from Reuters. The opposition used Sarin - Sarin IS nerve gas - in April.

[BainsBane]

59. I read that

I didn't realize Sarin was nerve gas. I do appreciate the links.

[leveymg]

66. Here's a very thorough article on Sarin's manufacture, use, and detection after use

As for the ability of investigators to determine with a certainty who manufactured and launched these particular devices, that may never be determined. The same goes for provenance of the nerve agent, itself. The best detailed treatise on Sarin, its manufacture, characteristics, and its effects and forensic details, in Syria is by Dan Kazseta, a US Army Chemical Corps veteran and consultant, available here (fairly long, but all informative): http://newsmotion.org/author/noreplybloggercom-brown-moses?page=1

[BainsBane]

67. Bookmarking for after work

Thanks very much.

[BainsBane]

62. So do you think inspectors will be able to tell

whether this last attack was released by the government or rebels?

[leveymg]

68. No. Please see my response immediately above.

[quinnox]

2. My red line is biological and nuclear warfare

chemical warfare is bad, of course, but it is not the same as biological warfare, where the killing could spread all around the world in a plague, or nuclear warfare, which is our version of the ultimate weapon.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. I think chemical is at least as bad as biological

Biological is extremely difficult to do, in practice.

[jessie04]

37. LOL

If you allow chemical weapons, you're going to GET biological and nuclear weapons !!!!

[madville]

4. What should we do if it was the rebels?

Or a setup? Nothing? I give it 50/50 about who is responsible.

[leftstreet]

6. I can't keep these rent-an-insurgencies straight

Does anyone really know who's accusing which group of doing what thing, to whom, and when or where?

[nolabels]

64. If one studied the geography of it, then rent-an-insurgency seems obvious

A natural gas line through Syria to Europe to cut Russia out of the loop. Cold warriors never die, they just get higher positions

[Recursion]

5. The Paranoid Style in American Politics

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html

Anyways, Doctors Without Borders has run with the story, so I'm having trouble buying the idea that people sincerely doubt the story.

I'm fine with the US and its allies inflicting great pain on the Assad regime if they gassed heir own people. Not troops on the ground, not a war, but some sort of strike to let them know that we care.

Why? What good would that do? Would it advance our national security? Our interests? Would it make the Syrian Civil War end sooner or later than otherwise? What would be the impact on Turkey? Lebanon? Israel? The West Bank? Jordan? Iraq?

[HooptieWagon]

9. Doctors without Borders

Reports are they didn't actually see the victims. They report they think it was a gas attack, but didn't specify which side used it.
I could have been Assad's forces, it could have been the rebels, or it could have been a third party. There are stories that both sides possess and have used gas. Neither side is a potential US ally (many of the rebel groups supported by AQ jihadists). So the US should tread very carefully....a non-winnable quagmire is very lilely.

[Downwinder]

7. Manny, i'm with you, that argument won't cut it.

The US Atomic bombed it's own people. Lets hand out some justice here at home before we stick our noses into some other country. Though I suspicion we are already ass deep in Syria.

[karynnj]

81. The US did not atomic bomb any place except 2 Japanese cities

I assume you are speaking of the testing in the desert that has been found to have impacted people growing up in the area. This is more like allowing a toxic site and later learning it was more toxic than anyone assumed.

[Downwinder]

84. They knew about the toxicity in 1945.

They put out pamphlets to tell us the fallout was not harmful.

I refer you to:
"American Ground Zero: The Secret Nuclear War"
by Carole Gallagher

[JVS]

8. They can get in line right behind Bush, Cheney, et al.

For some lessons at the Hague.

[KittyWampus]

10. Yeah, you forgot John Kerry.

[JDPriestly]

25. What does John Kerry say about which side used the gas or whether both did?

He does not have a reputation as a warmonger although any person who is subjected to a sort of subtle psy-ops and lie upon lie can persuaded that a falsehood is true.

But what does Kerry say?

[KittyWampus]

40. great questions and I would like to know.

[JDPriestly]

45. I think he is a person who reads carefully and asks questions. I could be wrong, but that is what

I think.

[karynnj]

82. The statement is there

He does not definitely say the government did it, but from context it is clear that that is what he and the Obama administration believe. He does speak of having pushed for the government to immediately let the inspectors in - which they failed to do. He does refer at one point to more information that will be provided. I assume that will include information that proves Assad did it. They might be waiting for the UN inspectors information - even though their job is more to determine that an attack did occur.

[Smarmie Doofus]

11. I don't think there's anyway to satisfactorily "prove" that if these people were...

...gassed, that the Syrian regime gassed them. No matter WHO in congress goes along with it.

There are just too many hidden agendas associated with this issue.

[sabrina 1]

12. We used chemical weapons in Iraq. So I don't think the ban has lasted

for a hundred years.

So help me with this. If YOU use chemical weapons yourself, are you really the one who should act all moral about someone else doing it, or should you keep your mouth shut, be glad no one has punished YOU, and leave it to people who have never done so?

I'm inclined this time, to let the UN do the job. I don't know why we are barging in there when the UN is already doing their job.

And if you remember, the UN was RIGHT last time, about the WMDs.

Like you I don't believe a word out of the mouths of anyone in power in DC anymore.

I believe the reports that the 'rebels' are responsible. They ARE Al Queda, and other extremists from outside Syria.

But how convenient for the PNAC gang. They never expected the Syrian people to put up such a fight against their proxy 'rebels' and they are getting impatient, they are worrying that maybe the Syrian people might win after all.

Same as Libya. The pattern is becoming so familiar and it is pure evil imo as was Iraq. They instigate these 'rebellions and they don't care WHO gets murdered.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. We used chemical weapons in Iraq?

Then that's awful, awful, but I'm guessing that you're right because... well, you always are.

Do you have a link for educational purposes?

[JoeyT]

17. Well, there was white phosphorus.

Which we claimed loud and long was a chemical weapon when Saddam used it, then used it ourselves and insisted it was a conventional weapon.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1123-03.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_use_in_Iraq (Yeah, I know. Wikipedia. It's sourced to articles from the BBC and others, though.)

Or the main article section on WP use in recent times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus#Later_uses

[ForgoTheConsequence]

23. We also used napalm.

The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it
Now we know napalm and phosphorus bombs have been dropped on Iraqis, why have the hawks failed to speak out?



http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq

[Gravitycollapse]

24. White phosphorous is an incendiary not a chemical weapon.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

26. Maybe they are wrong, but "US intelligence classified white phosphorus as 'chemical weapon' "

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-intelligence-classified-white-phosphorus-as-chemical-weapon-516523.html

[Gravitycollapse]

27. It is neither a chemical nor a conventional weapon.

At least, not conventional in the same sense that incendiary weapons were used in WWII.

It is used to set fires. And, in the context of use against civilians, it is a war crime.

[JoeyT]

42. I know.

The point is we claimed it was a chemical weapon when others used it, then when we wanted to use it suddenly it was totally a conventional weapon.

It's pretty nasty stuff even when it isn't on fire, though I'm not sure how persistent it is in the environment.

[jeff47]

44. If you read the claim closely in the link

White Phosphorus has toxic effects if it was sprayed on people and not ignited. That's why those filmmakers were claiming it was a chemical weapon.

However, white phosphorus weapons always ignite the white phosphorus turning it into a conventional, but horrific, incendiary weapon. Burning white phosphorus does not cause toxic effects in humans. It incinerates them instead.

[sabrina 1]

78. It is a BANNED weapon. So where was the 'moral outrage' back then

people are asking all over the world?

[jeff47]

43. Nah, she's just very persistent

but I'm guessing that you're right because... well, you always are.

Nah, she's just very persistent. Most people pointing out the errors give up before she does.

In this case, I believe she's referring to people who claim White Phosphorus and Napalm are chemical weapons. They aren't. They're incendiaries and thus not officially banned.

Using them against civilian populations is banned, because their effects are horrific, but that doesn't make them chemical weapons.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. We know that Saadam used them on the Kurds and in Iran. Rumsfeld went to shake his hand just

5 months after. That's Rumsfeld who later claimed he knew were all the WMDs were in Iraq and that the war would last 'days, maybe weeks'.
Our reaction to other's use of these weapons has not been consistent nor righteous, even if you define our own use of banned weapons out of existence.
So let's say Assad did this. Can you imagine an American official going to shake his hand in 5 months? That was US policy not so long ago.

[KoKo]

77. "New Docs Detail U.S. Involvement in Saddam's Nerve Gas Attacks"

The U.S. knew about, and in one case helped, Iraq's chemical weapons attacks against Iran in the 1980's, according to recently declassified CIA documents obtained by Foreign Policy. Their detailed timeline, also constructed with the aid of interviews with former foreign intelligence officials, indicates that the U.S. secretly had evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks in 1983. The evidence, FP writes, is "tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched."

Ever since last week's devastating evidence of chemical attacks in Syria, analysts have looked for benchmarks to predict the U.S.'s response. On Sunday, a U.S. official suggested that the U.S. is moving closer to possible military action in the country as the U.S. has "little doubt" that an "indiscriminate" chemical attack took place. Officials are reportedly looking to the 1998 air war on Kosovo for a precedent — a similar humanitarian crisis in the face of virtually no chance of a U.N. Security Council resolution to authorize use of force, thanks to dissent from Russia. And while Foreign Policy's additional reporting places the Iraq situation in contrast to today's debate over Syria, the details reveal just how sharply, in the past, the razor of U.S. interests in the Middle East has cut: "it was the express policy of Reagan to ensure an Iraqi victory in the war, whatever the cost," the report explains. And apparently, that went up to and including helping Saddam Hussein gas Iran.

From 1983 until 1987, the U.S. more or less sat on (and internally discussed) intelligence containing strong evidence of Iraq's chemical weapons use — early on, that meant mustard gas. Retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona told the magazine that he first learned of Iraq's chemical weapons use in 1984. All that time, Iran was publicly saying that Iraq had used chemical weapons against them. They just didn't have any evidence to take to the U.N. Then, Iran concentrated a large number of troops near the Iraqi city of Barash, near a vulnerability in Iraq's defenses:

The U.S. authorized intelligence sharing with Iraq, and gave Iraq the location of those troops. Iraq then conducted a series of devastating sarin gas attacks. You can view all of the declassified documents (or read the whole report) at Foreign Policy.

Link to Foreign Policy for Full Report at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023536110

[Amonester]

13. Congress refuses to raise taxes and wants to shut down the government.

Can you spare some change for that 2x4?

[Marr]

15. I have a hard time believing the Assad regime would do such a thing.

They just saw a neighbor completely demolished on the mere bogus accusation of the presence of such weapons. It would be an intensely stupid thing to do.

At the same time, it certainly fits in very nicely with the agenda of the US elements that drummed up the bullshit about Iraq last time.

Yeah, I'd need to see some serious proof.

[kelliekat44]

50. Why would he order that kind of action. His generals know that would not benefit them.

The only people to benefit from such an attack are the rebels and rebel supporters. It's not like false flag operations have not been carried out by Mossad in the region before just to get us all involved in weeding out those Israel doesn't like or who pose a threat to Israel. We forget inconvenient history so quickly.

[JayhawkSD]

16. Number one, they probably didn't.

But even if they did, who appointed us to punish them? Who set us up as the world's judge, jury and executioner? Who appointed us to rule the world and spank anyone who does anything of which we disapprove? If we think it's so horrible, that's what we participated in creating the United Nations for.

If Assad should be punished for using gas, what should be done to the US for using a nuclear bomb on the civilain populations of two Japanese cities? Don't give me the excuse that we were at war, Assad is at war; a civil war, but a war nonetheless, and he is defending a large community of Syrian Christians.

[randome]

69. The world set us up this way.

Like it or not, the U.S. is leader of the world in most contexts. It may not be right or fair but it's reality.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Bluenorthwest]

75. Actually we set it up this way after WW2. Held on tight after the cold war.

It was not thrust upon us by 'the world' it was parsed out with the allies after the war. That's why Russia still 'has' some countries and we 'have' others. The entire set up has gone poorly in this region for many years now, since the fall of Tehran to the Ayatolas at least.

[randome]

76. The world could act in concert to change this but they won't.

I think for the most part they are quite willing to let the U.S. take all the risks and all the headaches with being 'in charge'.

We could not have set things up after WW2 without the rest of the world's acquiescence. But, regardless of how it came to be this way, it's still where things stand now.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[JohnyCanuck]

18. Considering how they lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident

to get the Vietnam war rolling.

Thirty years ago, it all seemed very clear.

"American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression", announced a Washington Post headline on Aug. 5, 1964.

That same day, the front page of the New York Times reported: "President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and 'certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam' after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin."

But there was no "second attack" by North Vietnam — no "renewed attacks against American destroyers." By reporting official claims as absolute truths, American journalism opened the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War.

A pattern took hold: continuous government lies passed on by pliant mass media...leading to over 50,000 American deaths and millions of Vietnamese casualties.

http://fair.org/media-beat-column/30-year-anniversary-tonkin-gulf-lie-launched-vietnam-war/

....and then, in order to get the US population riled up to support an illegal invasion of Iraq, there were all the wild-ass accusation's about Saddam's WMDs and remote control drones that were going to be launched to spray chemical/biological agents over US cities - not to mention Colin Powell's shameful performance waving that vial around in the UN speech to represent the anthrax that Saddam was supposedly stock piling in his biological warfare labs which later turned out to be weather balloon inflators (sold to him by the Brits, I believe).

As I see it, Assad and his generals would have to be totally clueless to allow gassing of civilians within a couple of days of a UN investigation team arriving in the country and while knowing that the US is looking for any excuse to rocket his ass. If the US does seize this episode as the excuse they need to launch a strike against Assad's forces, the rebels are the ones who will have gained the most from this "gassing of the innocents" exercise. I hardly think Assad and his general's would not have considered that point before taking what would be an absolutely reckless decision (from their point of view) to let loose a barrage of chemical warfare agents on a civilian population?

And then there is this story from January of this year:

Reuters) - U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.

The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.

"Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.

"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505

During the 1999 civil case against Loyd Jowers brought by the King family accusing Jowers of being part of a conspiracy to kill MLK, one of the witnesses called to explain how false stories are planted in the mainstream media by US government agencies in order to demonize the chosen"enemies of the state" was an attorney, journalist and author by the name of William Schaap. It is well worth keeping what Schaap had to say about these media disinformation and propaganda techniques when evaluating the reliability of US media reports and government pronouncements, especially when war fever is hanging in the Washington air. You can watch Schaap's court testimony about use of the mainstream media for promoting disinformation and propaganda at the trial on Youtube (incidentally, in that civil case the jury agreed with the King family and returned a verdict in their favor):

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=BA69081DC9C0AE84

So taking all of the above into account, personally I am 99.9% certain this is just another lie/disinformation/black op/propaganda exercise to get another profitable war off the ground. Using up those cruise missiles and bombs will mean they have to be replaced and some military-industrial-complex execs will be going to bed with smiles on their faces and maybe visions of bonuses dancing in their heads once another war has been successfully foisted off on the public as an unavoidable necessity.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

28. Before the Gulf of Tonkin incident, there was a build-up in preparation for the Viet Nam war.

In fact, shortly after the JFK assignation, the Commandant of the Marine Corps who was opposed to decisions for a land war in Southeast Asia resigned.

[newfie11]

33. I totally agree with you

I also wonder if there isn't something behind the the rebels ( like the CIA). They have perfected this so well in South America.

Syria was one of the 7 countries bush/Cheney wanted. Must have oil ya know.

I guess time will tell

[abelenkpe]

19. I'm with you on not believing anything

Serious crisis of faith has me doubting all news, government, information, etc.

[delrem]

20. I do believe the US helped Iraq gas the Iranians, and Kurds.

But of course that doesn't "count".

[MannyGoldstein]

21. And the people involved should be in jail

if they weren't 1%ers, of course.

[delrem]

22. And not ever (even possible) gonna happen.

What'll happen is that the US population will be psyched into yet another self-righteous war - the war lacking any sense and the justifications lacking any grounding in reality. That much is well-proven clockwork. The US will continue to sell contracts for 10's of billions in armaments to dictatorships that sign on the dotted line "or else". The US population will continue congratulating itself as being by nature superior to the victims of its economy.

[limpyhobbler]

29. I'm highly skeptical of bombing anything. We've been conned too many times.

The USA doesn't have much moral authority on this issue. Have you seen birth defects caused by our depleted uranium munitions in Iraq? If not just do a google image search for "fallujah depleted uranium"

The government's motives in suggesting war are highly suspect. Even if it's "just bombing" I don't trust the government. We've been conned too many times. Think Gulf of Tonkin. They can't be trusted when it comes to anything like this.

We're tearing down homeless encampments and torturing people right here in our own prisons. We need to clean our own house.

We helped create the situation in Syria by arming one side in a civil war. The President made a decision to push Assad out. That's a big decision. Did you know Obama takes his job very seriously? So seriously in fact that he must have considered that arming the rebels would back Assad into a corner where he would do something sinister like this which could then be a cause for "just a little bombing".

[Go Vols]

83. +1

[bowens43]

30. fuck that. We are not in any position to be 'teaching lessons' to other countries.

The US is one of the most war like nations that has ever existed. We have been attacking one group of people or another for all of our existence.

We do NOT have the right to start a war with Syria. To do so would be every bit as vile as what Assad has allegedly done.

[soundsgreat]

31. It's good to consult Russian sources these days

not that I have big trust in Putin - however - it's a counterweight.

Because I don't trust UK/US/French politicians neither. Mr. William Hague for example, who used the magic word:

I know that some people in the world would like to say that this is some kind of conspiracy brought about by the opposition in Syria,

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. what would be the most predictable consequences of launching military strikes against Syria?

Will it increase or decrease the bloodletting? Either it would be insufficient to lead toward the toppling of the regime and would only encourage further bloodletting. The Assad regime is largely backed by a coalition of minorities; Christians, Shiites, Allawaites, Druze, and others who know that if Assad looses - so do they. They will fight to the end because they are fighting for their survival. Or we will have to see a massive military involvement that will cause a great deal of bloodletting in itself leading toward either a protracted civil war with even more bloodletting or a totalitarian regime equal or worse than Assad.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

34. There is no "if"...

... it sounds like the Administration has pretty much decided that gas was used, and who used it. We don't need no stinkin' investigations.

As far as lessons, yeah, we're pretty good at delivering a spanking, with million-dollar cruise missiles and such. What we suck at is delivering any kind of stability.

All we're going to do is punch Assad's nose. The Shia will call us devils. The Sunni will praise the attacks, wait a week, then call us devils.

Remind me: why are we getting into this?

[WonderGrunion]

35. Wait! Did you forget to sign this "Third Way Manny"?

Or is this a re-appearance of "Boston Strong" Manny?

[malaise]

36. I'm against the use of all chemical weapons

but who was it who used agent Orange and Depleted Uranium? What explains all those cancers in Iraq? Who is the pot and who is the kettle here?

[cali]

38. Al Franken? Seriously? He supported the war in Iraq

he's been squishy on lots of things. He's hardly someone to be trusted.

[Wilms]

39. ^

[GeorgeGist]

46. Everybodies favorite good guy ...

[BainsBane]

48. Ideally he should be put on trial at the Hague

but how to get him there is the problem.

[nil desperandum]

49. Disagree

Teaching Assad that lesson would only reinforce his view that the strong can dominate the weak, it does nothing to create a more secure America and it does nothing to settle the violence in the middle east. All it does it get more American soldiers killed for no positive outcome. As we abandon Iraq and Afghanistan and the return to their pre-war conditions with the Taliban retaking Afghanistan and the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds all still hating each other in Iraq we should ask ourselves what a couple of trillion dollars 6,000 dead Americans, 100,000 dead Afghans and Iraqis has accomplished?

We spent a trillion dollars to get bin Laden...seems like we could have spent 20% of that and secured our borders and it would have rendered bin Laden just as useless....

I would ask the same question about Syria that I asked about Iraq and Afghanistan, what's the plan for the endgame? When do you leave and what do you hope to accomplish? If it's just knocking out the government and destroying infrastructure we don't need 12 years for that....I suspect when history reviews these conflicts we will discover we spent a lot of money, killed a lot of people and accomplished very little in terms of real security while acquiescing to a surrender of most of our basic BoR liberties.

[n2doc]

54. WHO are WE to TEACH ANYONE a LESSON?

The US has been a part of several of the most genocidal acts in history. The ethnic cleansing of the native Americans. The nuclear bombing of Japan. Numerous coups and support of murderous dictatorships throughout the world. Unprovoked wars killing hundreds of thousands.


We are one of the last countries on earth who should be 'teaching' anyone a lesson. All we have done in the last 50 years is bring death and misery to other countries.

[BainsBane]

56. If the US acted it would not be alone

The Obama administration has made that clear. It would be part of the international community, including the EU.

[n2doc]

58. Ah, the old 'international community' BS

We bribe all of them, or threaten all of them, to go along with us. But it is the USA that 'leads'.

[BainsBane]

61. If you think this is just like Iraq

You're not paying attention.

[n2doc]

63. It is just like Libya

And I am paying attention. You don't seem to be learning any lessons, though.

[BainsBane]

65. What lessons am I supposed to learn?

I haven't said I support a military invasion or strike. What I want to do is understand the situation and possible options. I don't happen to think it's okay to sit back while a regime annihilates its population. Perhaps you think Rwanda was perfectly fine. I don't.

[randome]

70. What politicians did in the past is irrelevant.

No one can go back in time and make everything we have done consistent and plausible.

All that matters is what is happening today.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[n2doc]

72. So in your mind, all that matters is that we can kill and disrupt

And no one can stop us. What a country.

[randome]

73. Hell, no! What matters is that we base our actions and judgments on the Present, not the Past.

I'm rather ambivalent about military action against Syria. But for the most part, I'm willing to let the experts make that decision. I don't see our CIC as a trigger-happy moron as was his predecessor.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[MNBrewer]

60. I think we are being led by the nose into military action.

The problem with the use of chemical weapons is knowing WHO used them.

[truth2power]

71. Manny - I was driving home from a meeting yesterday (Mon.) evening, and John Kerry

was on NPR describing, in great detail, the gassing incident and his outrage about it.

I noted that his remarks, in their entirety, were about the incident, itself, on which there is no dispute that it happened. There was not one word about who did it, leaving listeners to ass-sume that it was the Syrian Govt.

Without a doubt, American interests fall heavily on the Syrian Govt. being to blame for this. And Kerry is manipulating to plant that seed in the minds of the American people.

Given who has most to gain from gassing innocent Syrian civilians, my money would be on our proxy army, al Qaeda, i.e. the rebels.

[karynnj]

80. Kerry did refer to future information that would come out

I assume that information will include a strong case that it was the Syrian government. I think that the Obama administration is waiting for the UN information before making that definitive case and that Kerry was asked to speak to why this is crossing not just an arbitrary red line, but a universal boundary of what is acceptable.

[truth2power]

85. Talk is cheap! Look what's happening here...

Kerry referred to "further information", which causes you (and many others) to ass-sume the Syrian Govt's guilt will be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. BS. I'm not attacking you personally. It's just part of the manipulation.

Since there's a new outrage every day, whatever info. Sir Kerry was (or more likely, was not) going to provide will be lost in the shuffle, or the US will attack Syria, at which point the guilt or innocence of either party will be moot for all practical purposes.

I was not impressed or persuaded by Kerry's remarks last night.

Cui bono?

[karynnj]

90. I doubt there was anything Kerry could have said that would have convinced you

In my case, I am convinced that he is genuinely disgusted and sickened by the actions of Assad. I also think that he believes that Assad is the one who did this. My belief is based on having listened to him for nearly a decade - and having found him to be extremely honest.

In addition, I do know that he has tried - in whatever position he has been in - to try to find a diplomatic, not a military solution here. He had - with Lavrov succeeded in getting Geneva talks back on the drawing board and had some limited success in improving the relationship with Russia - until Snowden and everything around him made the relationship worse than it has been for years.

Contrast his demeanor here with the obvious joy he showed in the press conference with Livni and the Palestinian negotiator. If there was anyone who took the SoS job hoping to make the world more peaceful -- it was Kerry.

However, I do want to hear what proof there is.

[karynnj]

79. I would include John Kerry

If you watch JK's statement, it is clear that he clearly believes what he is saying and is very clearly affected by the events in Syria. Until last Wednesday, he - more than anyone in the US government was pushing with Lavrov for a diplomatic conference and was saying there was no military solution. I see nothing here that suggests that he sees one now.

I assume that there is NOTHING JK would prefer than to instead by making an announcement of some diplomatic solution brokered with Lavrov rather than responding to what seems to be a very horrific attack in Syria.

[whoiswithme]

86. Not our fight

The guy who replaces him could be even worse. It's time to stop playing God over in the middle east.

[Zorra]

87. The 2000 election, and the Bush administration extinguished what little trust of government

I had left after Reagan destroyed the country.

I watched some TV news this morning at one of the places I work, while I was waiting for someone to arrive. The portion about Syria was clearly pro-war propaganda.

I have not had a TV in decades, and this morning I was really glad my head is not full of years of sewage spilled by that deadly corporate tool.

[boomer55]

88. kinda like the ban on torture? maybe we should remove the plank

from our own eye before we start on others?

[yurbud]

89. the problem is both the trustworthiness of their diagnosis of the problem and the "treatment"

they recommend.

Even if they correctly diagnose a cold, they will recommend amputation to treat it.

[moondust]

91. Washington's credibility is a BIG problem.

I think one can assume that U.S. intelligence agencies monitored Saddam's regime for years after the first Iraq war, through the Clinton administration and into the Bush administration. After years of surveillance they should have known that Saddam did not have active WMD programs. And yet...

And now with regard to Syria, Washington is likely going to tell us that they have intelligence proving that it was the Assad regime that used chemical weapons. Oh really? Intelligence produced by the same agencies that apparently didn't have a clue about Saddam?

Why should we believe "the intelligence" after it apparently failed so catastrophically in Iraq? Or is somebody just making shit up again?

[nolabels]

92. Alex, What is "Somebody is just making shit up again"

First the spooks tried an earlier Faux Chemo Strike they said Assad launched, then when that didn't stick just a couple months latter they come up with the little more detailed plan. When the bluff was called and Assad was making in endorsements for UN inspections, the renta-insurgency shot up the UN inspectors vehicles to make sure they didn't make it. Then when they finally did, they the spooks went on the 'it's too late' for those informed about it, and for those uninformed were given the line 'Assad was against investigations'.

It's just a bunch of made up shit to start a war

Remember to say, Hello Agent Mike