Amid domestic opposition, Obama mulls Syria.

[another_liberal]

Source: Al Jazeera America

U.S. intelligence officials sought Saturday to determine whether Syria's government unleashed a deadly chemical weapons attack on its citizens last week while the Obama administration prepared for a possible military response by moving naval forces closer to Syria. President Barack Obama has emphasized that quick intervention in the years-old Syrian civil war is problematic because of the international considerations that should precede a military strike.

Obama is also likely to encounter national resistance to a military intervention. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll released Saturday evening found that about 60 percent of Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria, with only 9 percent in favor. Obama discussed the situation in Syria by telephone with British Prime Minister David Cameron on Saturday, the White House said. It was Obama's first known conversation with a foreign leader about Syria since the reports this week that hundreds of Syrians had been killed by an alleged chemical attack in a suburb of Damascus, the country's capital. The White House said the two leaders expressed "grave concern" about the reported chemical weapons use, which both of their countries oppose.

(snip)

The Syrian government vehemently denies the claims. It also has warned the U.S. against taking military action, saying such a step would set the Middle East ablaze. But Obama is under mounting pressure to act following reports of the alleged chemical weapons attack, which opposition groups say killed more than 1,000 people.

Bart Janssens, operations director for Doctors Without Borders, said Saturday that hospitals the medical charity works with in Syria had reported thousands of patients displaying "neurotoxic symptoms" in line with mass exposure to nerve gas. Around 3,600 patients have been treated in the three hospitals, he added. Of those, 355 have reportedly died, according to DOB. If confirmed, it would be the largest chemical weapons attack since Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds in the town of Halabja in 1988.

(snip)

Read more: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/8/24/us-moves-forces-towardsyriaconsultswithcameron.html

---

Only nine percent of Americans think attacking Syria is a good idea? That's a lower approval rating than the Republicans in Congress!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. We should not meddle in the middle east

we have too much at stake at home. Money which must suddenly grow on trees is given liberally to middle eastern countries. Oh look we found $20 million to give to Syria. That's the 20 million that was supposed to be used here.

If these countries want to fight amongst themselve so be it but it's the big corporations who don't want their pipelines damaged.

[another_liberal]

2. I have to agree.

It's an open question whether we could actually help the innocent people we supposedly want to help. Our track record in regard to positively affecting the lot of people in the Middle East is abysmal of late.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. we annihilated thousands of Iraqis and maimed hundreds of thousands

let them sort out their own battles. I didn't see us helping Chad much when it had its wars?

oh wait look there's another pipeline!
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/37992.htm

[tavalon]

7. Not just of late

We've never been great for them.

[razorman]

34. Same here. We have no more reason to attack Syria than

we did Iraq.

[DeSwiss]

3. They should offer the cash they'd spend paying the MIC.....

...and offer it to the people we'd be bombing instead. I mean if you consider the billions we'd most probably be spending on war-making there, wouldn't it be cheaper to simply buy-off the belligerents? There are only 23 million Syrians and billions of $ spent on bombs and bullets. Do the math.

- Just a thought......

K&R

[another_liberal]

4. Except that the big stockholders of our top weapons-making corporations would never hear of it.

Our "one percent" does decide the content of this nation's foreign policy, at least it has recently.

[DeSwiss]

6. Exactly.

Just one more good reason to be done with 'em.

- ASAP.

[dtom67]

8. only 9% ?

I think 5 of the 9% are regulars here.

No amount of fiery rhetoric,flowery prose or browbeating will convince me that more killing is our best option.

Where is the money gonna come from?

The answer is that we will borrow it. Then we will give it to a bunch of military contractors. We will not know what we got for our money , if anything. It will be borrowed in our name, the corporations will pocket the money and we get the debt and the blow-back that has earned us the enmity of millions in the region. What a great deal!

and in a few weeks, the congress will come to us and say that we are broke. We must cut entitlements and healthcare. The deficit is too big because the parasitic peasantry expects social services. Greedy poor people!!


Lippmann must be right about people believing the picture in their head as opposed to using logical analysis and critical thinking; otherwise this shit would NEVER fly....

[another_liberal]

9. I doubt it will fly.

Our President can't be that naive anymore. Surely he can recognize this kind of a scam by now. He's been around that block a few times already.

[ConcernedCanuk]

10. Obama - take care of your own citizens.

.
.
.

Russia, China, Israel, etc., etc. have more than enough firepower to handle their own local problems.

USA would be well advised to spend their attention on their own citizens methinks.

CC

[another_liberal]

11. Hear! Hear!

A voice of reason.

[David__77]

12. 9 percent in favor - an overestimate for sure.

I think it's definitely less than 5%. And yet the media talks of "rising outcries" and "mounting demands," as if there is but one result toward which we are inexorably moving. Nonsense. Obama must reject the cries among the elite, demanding that he enmesh the US in yet another military adventure, this time in support of Islamist terrorism.

[another_liberal]

17. If our President caves in and starts a war with Syria and her allies . . .

It could well cost Democrats the mid-term elections if our President caves in and starts a war with Syria and her allies.

[branford]

27. Possibly, but both D's and R's in Congress are divided.

I think it more likely that both parties would face blow-back, and it would be more of a wash.

Once the investigation is complete (or as complete as is possible in the region), I think we'll have a much better idea of the political effects of American involvement. If the investigation uncovers Syrian government use of chemical weapons against civilians, the polls on the issue might shift more towards involvement, although I believe it still would not be a majority.

[branford]

13. Obama painted himself into a corner.

He's the one that emphatically set the "red line" for intervention in the event chemical weapons were used in Syria. He's already fudged it with respect to other alleged chemical weapon attacks.

I don't know how Obama gets out of this mess without looking weak and foolish.

Nevertheless, in a moment of rare agreement with "another_liberal," we should not get involved in Syria.

[Mr.Bill]

15. To me, if he turns his back on it

he doesn't look weak or foolish. He looks smart.

[branford]

16. You know from my post that I basically agree with you.

However, once a president sets a red line, and then does nothing, other "less savory" countries and rulers begin to not take you seriously. This was precisely the reason why Obama would not agree to Netanyahu's request to set red lines with Iran. The whole point of a red line is that you've already determined that you are ready and willing to act.

It's tough to be president, and I don't envy Obama in this instance.

At this point, I see no reason or advantage to intervene in Syria, even with a chemical attack. I just want to avoid involvement AND have Obama look strong doing it.

[Mr.Bill]

18. I just want no body bags

with US military in them. I'm sick of watching our kids die for nothing. Almost to the point that I don't care about anything else. I've seen nothing but pointless wars my whole life and lost too many friends.

[branford]

21. Ironically, an "inconclusive" investigation of the alleged chemical attack might offer the most hope

[another_liberal]

20. Our only involvement . . .

I can only support aid to Syrian refugees. The combatants don't deserve any of our money, none of them. Our only involvement should be in helping those who have been forced to flee the endless fighting.

[branford]

22. Unfortunately, the refugee issue is also causing many problems.

Countries like Turkey and Jordan host a large number of Syrian refugees, and it is causing them tremendous political instability. This instability is leading them to believe military intervention if a viable option, and as they are our nominal allies, we're being dragged along with them.

[another_liberal]

24. If Jordan or Turkey intervenes in Syria . . .

I am not a citizen of either Jordan or Turkey. If Jordan or Turkey decides to intervene in Syria, their immediate neighbor, that is their decision to make.

[branford]

28. I happen to agree with you, but it really isn't that simple.

Turkey is a NATO ally that has claimed attacks from Syrian borders. We already have Patriot batteries in country, and the Turks are agitating for greater involvement.

Jordan is also a strong American ally in the region, with a (fairly benign) monarch. With Egypt on the brink, a stable Jordan would be considered essential.

Nevertheless, I still oppose any involvement. The pressure to intervene, however, particularly if there is actual evidence of a chemical attack by the Syrian government, will continue to grow.

[delrem]

14. In Obama's first term, with Hillary Clinton designer,

the US invented a "Friends of Syria" movement with Qatar and Saudi Arabia being fronts.
A result of that is that the "Syrian rebels, the heroic Syrian insurgents" are mercenaries who pledge allegiance to al Qaeda, and who take money from launderers like Academi.

That isn't a good start, and it's for just that reason that I wince at the Hillary16 AstroTurf.

[Comrade Grumpy]

19. I'm glad to see there is little public taste for US military action.

What is being publicly contemplated--limited missile or air strikes--wouldn't achieve any decisive effect, but would get us openly involved in the conflict, with inexorable pressure to escalate as initial steps fail to achieve their stated goals. Sorry, we've been down enough bomb-strewn roads in the Middle East/Southwest Asia lately.

[branford]

23. I think American distaste for involvement is because we don't like either side in the conflict.

If the rebels had better PR, I think that Americans would already have boots on the ground

Luckily, its difficult to flak for Al Queda affiliates.

We're not so bad, we'll kill fewer infidels than Assad. Good luck with that!

[David__77]

30. The rebels have great PR, but you can only cover up so much.

When you have someone chowing down on your enemies for the camera, open talk of exterminating people for being "infidels," sharia councils running things, children being executed for joking around, and your best fighters are AL QAEDA of all things, all the PR in the world isn't going to help you out too much.

[another_liberal]

25. Well said.

Way to cut to the chase.

[tofuandbeer]

26. So sad. I keep seeing photos of so many young lives lying wrapped in white sheets. :(

[branford]

29. I agree, but what is the solution?

[Summer Hathaway]

31. Nostradamus-level prediction here ...

No matter what Obama does, it will be (according to DU) the wrong decision.

In fact, it will be the worst possible choice he could have made.

Within 48 hours, there will be a dozen OPs about it being the worst decision ever made by a US president in the entire history of the nation.

Sometimes this predictin' stuff doesn't require much thought.

[Ghost Dog]

32. The bit so many msm reports leave out:

To be more fully complete, and especially in the present context, the phrase:

"...the largest chemical weapons attack since Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds in the town of Halabja in 1988"

should read:

"...the largest chemical weapons attack since Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds in the town of Halabja in 1988 with the approval of the then governments of the U.S. and U.K."

[dipsydoodle]

33. Reuters/Ipsos poll figures.

As Syria war escalates, Americans cool to U.S. intervention

"The president warned Syria's government last year that any attempt to deploy or use chemical or biological weapons would cross a "red line."

Reuters/Ipsos poll http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/uk-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUKBRE97O00J20130825

If its made clear its the insurgents and the government using the chemicals then presumably the US will attack the insurgents on behalf of the Syrian government.

Running poll figures here : http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM43/type/day/dates/20130531-20130825

[John2]

35. This is to the point.

Considering the last decade and the new revelations about American Intelligence, it should not be suprising to some of you people, the United States and her so called Allies, have lost a lot of credability. People don't see the United States like they use to. The same goes for the Western Media..

There is also a lot of ways to get more information other than reportes from the Main Media. People can now get both sides and make up their own minds about who is telling the Truth. Everybody is not dumb, like the corporate media or their employees like to believe. In my case, I simply do not believe the Obama Administration. The so called rebels have been trying so hard to prove the Syrian Army used chemical weapons, ever sense Obama was duped into setting a red line by the Media and warmongers pushing him to attack Syria.

It has to be America to act and President Obama. Just why is that so? If it all turns out to be a big fat lie, guess who they will blame? Nobody is stopping these idiots from attacking Syria without America. They want, and you know why. Britain, France, and even Turkey has no support for attacking Syria from their own public. So just like the rightwing Republicans in America with entitlements, they want Obama to lead, and it appears he might be dumb enough to take the bait.

The man needs to reverse himself and get out of the bed with these rightwing neocon jerks, and these People who are bought and paid for by the Israeli Lobby. I looked up Eliot Engels background. The man is tied to a Jewish lobby for Israel. He authored a resolution in 2004 against Syria, signed by George W. Bush. He placed a resolution in Congress, that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel. That is what's driving the U.S. hostile policy towards War in this country, the same as with Iraq. Mr Eliot also voted to go to War in Iraq. These are the same people, Obama is listening to. Obama isn't running anything here. He is just a tool for these people. It is time people in this country have the guts to stand up, because they got rolled when it came to attacking Iraq. I don't care if it is John Kerry or Hillary Clinton, they all voted for the War in Iraq. Sure Kerry claims he wish he didn't but do you believe him? Don't let them fool you again.