The war in Syria (1 Viewer)

NCCommish said:

jamny said:

NCCommish said:

jamny said:

johnnycakes said:

Does anyone think we're going to do anything more than lob some cruise missiles? Hopefully they'd have some intel on Assad's location, and if accurate, that could presumably depose him permanently.

Click to expand...

I think that's all that will happen but it will be at military/chemical facilities, not at Assad directly.

Click to expand...

No we will not strike chemical targets. There is too much risk involved with that.

Click to expand...

Well maybe not the chemicals themselves but I'm sure they'll look to severely limit the ability to use them again.

Click to expand...

They will likely hit standard military targets. They have already said they won't try to target Assad or the government. This will be pretty limited IMO and will be more along the lines of a message delivery. Now if we decided to to go No Fly Zone then you might see something more intense. But with Syria's very formidable air defenses I think we'll hold off on that or we will have casualties.

Click to expand...

However, the effectiveness of this system as a whole is in doubt. Territorial losses to the rebels mean that some key sites have been lost to the government, and the Israeli air force has demonstrated that it can hit targets inside Syria with impunity (though some of the strikes may well have been made using stand-off weapons).

Click to expand...

johnnycakes said:

Does anyone think we're going to do anything more than lob some cruise missiles? Hopefully they'd have some intel on Assad's location, and if accurate, that could presumably depose him permanently.

Click to expand...

Politician Spock said:

johnnycakes said:

Does anyone think we're going to do anything more than lob some cruise missiles? Hopefully they'd have some intel on Assad's location, and if accurate, that could presumably depose him permanently.

Click to expand...

We will do whatever it takes to provoke Iran to take their first swing at us.... so then we respond by releasing hell on earth on them. The only reason our involvement in this whole Syria mess makes any sense to me as how much it outrages Iran. We're trying to pick a fight with them. We're teasing them so they'll punch first.

Click to expand...

Politician Spock said:

johnnycakes said:

Does anyone think we're going to do anything more than lob some cruise missiles? Hopefully they'd have some intel on Assad's location, and if accurate, that could presumably depose him permanently.

Click to expand...

We will do whatever it takes to provoke Iran to take their first swing at us.... so then we respond by releasing hell on earth on them. The only reason our involvement in this whole Syria mess makes any sense to me as how much it outrages Iran. We're trying to pick a fight with them. We're teasing them so they'll punch first.

Click to expand...

BEIRUT—A U.S. attack on Syria would likely dash expectations of progress in nuclear negotiations with Iran and undermine new Iranian President Hasan Rouhani's call for improving relations with the West, diplomats said.

An attack on Damascus would likely give Iranian hard-liners, who oppose a nuclear compromise, the upper hand over moderate President Hasan Rouhani, who has made foreign policy and nuclear talks a priority.

The deputy commander-in-chief of Iran's armed forces, Gen. Masoud Jazayeri, said on Monday that the U.S. would be "crossing a red line" if it violated Syria's borders and warned of dire consequences for Washington, according to Iranian media.

Syria's army and Lebanon's Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran, would target American warships in the Mediterranean Sea with ballistic missiles in the event of military action against Syria's regime, a high-level Iranian officials said, according to Fars News Agency, which is affiliated with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Iran, meanwhile, would be unlikely to engage in direct warfare with the U.S. or its allies over Syria, according to Western diplomats in Iran.

Instead, they could respond by refusing to make any compromise in future negotiations on its uranium enrichment program, and refraining from direct talks with the U.S., diplomats and experts said.

While the next round of international talks with Iran have yet to be scheduled, and no direct U.S. talks are set, Mr. Rouhani has raised expectations of progress on both fronts.

"If Washington attacks Syria, it's a game changer for negotiations with Iran. It will damage diplomatic efforts," said a Western diplomat based in Tehran.

Two prominent foreign envoys, on separate trips with similar agendas, were in Tehran on Monday to engage Iranian officials on regional issues including Syria's conflict, the political crisis in Egypt and stability in Lebanon.

These officials were also informally gauging Iran's intention for direct talks with the U.S. and its willingness to negotiate on its nuclear program, according to western diplomats familiar with the visits.

Jeffrey Feltman, the top political adviser for U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and a former senior U.S. diplomat, and Oman's Sultan Qaboos, who has been a go-between with Iran on several occasions, separately met with Iranian officials.

The two envoys have "had conversations with American officials and they discuss that with us," said Javad Zarif, Iran's foreign minister, in response to whether they carried messages from the U.S., according to official Iranian media. Both envoys couldn't be reached for comment.

The Obama administration and its European allies were monitoring Mr. Feltman's and the Omani leader's visits to Tehran in order to get a sense of how quickly negotiations with Tehran might pick up, said U.S. and European officials.

The White House hopes a resumption of talks between world powers and Iran over its nuclear program can commence before the annual United Nations General Assembly in September in New York, according to these officials.

Iran's President Rouhani, who took office this month, has said that his administration would take concrete steps to improve Iran's relations with the world and resolve the nuclear impasse with the West.

He has named Western-educated and internationally versed officials in his cabinet nominations to important posts, in steps toward reshaping Iran's tarnished image.

But a U.S.-led attack on Syria would undermine Mr. Rouhani's plans and allow hard-core conservatives to sideline his moderate cabinet members by arguing that the region is in a state of emergency.

"A direct U.S.-Iran conflict in Syria will only widen the chasm of mistrust needed to be bridged in order to reach a nuclear accommodation," said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert with Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Syria is a strategic ally of the Islamic Republic and a lifeline for its proxy militia, the Lebanese political and militant group Hezbollah.

Iran, along with Russia, has remained a steadfast supporter of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and urged a political settlement with the opposition for a transition that includes Mr. Assad.

Iran has also aided Mr. Assad's military in its fight against rebel opposition forces with arms, training, cash and fighters, according to members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Iran's Foreign Ministry has denied any military involvement in Syria. But several Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders have said that Iran has helped train and create militia forces in Syria, according to Iranian state media.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his close circle of advisers, including commanders of the Revolutionary Guards, determine Iranian policiessuch as involvement with Syria, talks with the U.S. and nuclear negotiations.

Mr. Rouhani has been working to convince Mr. Khamenei to divert this decision-making process to moderate technocrats and experts at the Foreign Ministry in an effort to unify Iran's positions on key state matters and build trust with the West, according to an adviser to the president.

The newly appointed Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, a former ambassador to the U.N., said last week that Mr. Rouhani might shift responsibility for nuclear policy within his administration to the foreign ministry, away from the national security committee, where hard liners have more influence. Iran has denied Western reports that its nuclear program is for military purposes.

"U.S. attacks on Syria would complicate Rouhani and Zarif's foreign diplomacy," said Fereydoun Majlesi, a former Iranian diplomat and political analyst in Tehran.

Click to expand...

Cliff Clavin said:

NCCommish said:

jamny said:

NCCommish said:

jamny said:

johnnycakes said:

Does anyone think we're going to do anything more than lob some cruise missiles? Hopefully they'd have some intel on Assad's location, and if accurate, that could presumably depose him permanently.

Click to expand...

I think that's all that will happen but it will be at military/chemical facilities, not at Assad directly.

Click to expand...

No we will not strike chemical targets. There is too much risk involved with that.

Click to expand...

Well maybe not the chemicals themselves but I'm sure they'll look to severely limit the ability to use them again.

Click to expand...

They will likely hit standard military targets. They have already said they won't try to target Assad or the government. This will be pretty limited IMO and will be more along the lines of a message delivery. Now if we decided to to go No Fly Zone then you might see something more intense. But with Syria's very formidable air defenses I think we'll hold off on that or we will have casualties.

Click to expand...

However, the effectiveness of this system as a whole is in doubt. Territorial losses to the rebels mean that some key sites have been lost to the government, and the Israeli air force has demonstrated that it can hit targets inside Syria with impunity (though some of the strikes may well have been made using stand-off weapons).

Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23849386

Click to expand...

NCCommish said:

Cliff Clavin said:

NCCommish said:

jamny said:

NCCommish said:

jamny said:

johnnycakes said:

Does anyone think we're going to do anything more than lob some cruise missiles? Hopefully they'd have some intel on Assad's location, and if accurate, that could presumably depose him permanently.

Click to expand...

I think that's all that will happen but it will be at military/chemical facilities, not at Assad directly.

Click to expand...

No we will not strike chemical targets. There is too much risk involved with that.

Click to expand...

Well maybe not the chemicals themselves but I'm sure they'll look to severely limit the ability to use them again.

Click to expand...

They will likely hit standard military targets. They have already said they won't try to target Assad or the government. This will be pretty limited IMO and will be more along the lines of a message delivery. Now if we decided to to go No Fly Zone then you might see something more intense. But with Syria's very formidable air defenses I think we'll hold off on that or we will have casualties.

Click to expand...

However, the effectiveness of this system as a whole is in doubt. Territorial losses to the rebels mean that some key sites have been lost to the government, and the Israeli air force has demonstrated that it can hit targets inside Syria with impunity (though some of the strikes may well have been made using stand-off weapons).

Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23849386

Click to expand...

Thanks for the update. I was going off my prior knowledge didn't realize the system had been so compromised.

Click to expand...

johnnycakes said:

NCCommish said:

Cliff Clavin said:

NCCommish said:

jamny said:

NCCommish said:

jamny said:

johnnycakes said:

Does anyone think we're going to do anything more than lob some cruise missiles? Hopefully they'd have some intel on Assad's location, and if accurate, that could presumably depose him permanently.

Click to expand...

I think that's all that will happen but it will be at military/chemical facilities, not at Assad directly.

Click to expand...

No we will not strike chemical targets. There is too much risk involved with that.

Click to expand...

Well maybe not the chemicals themselves but I'm sure they'll look to severely limit the ability to use them again.

Click to expand...

They will likely hit standard military targets. They have already said they won't try to target Assad or the government. This will be pretty limited IMO and will be more along the lines of a message delivery. Now if we decided to to go No Fly Zone then you might see something more intense. But with Syria's very formidable air defenses I think we'll hold off on that or we will have casualties.

Click to expand...

However, the effectiveness of this system as a whole is in doubt. Territorial losses to the rebels mean that some key sites have been lost to the government, and the Israeli air force has demonstrated that it can hit targets inside Syria with impunity (though some of the strikes may well have been made using stand-off weapons).

Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23849386

Click to expand...

Thanks for the update. I was going off my prior knowledge didn't realize the system had been so compromised.

Click to expand...

If they were going to send aircraft over Syrian airspace, don't you think it would first be with B2s? Way, way too much risk to have AAA taking out a non-stealthy aircraft.

When thinking about the complexity of this problem, "stay the bleep out" doesn't seem like such a bad option. too bad the 0 had to open his big mouf about use of chemical weapons being a game changer. Now he has to put up or shut up. And the President of the US having to shut up really isn't an option, either.

Click to expand...

TheIronSheik said:

Syria a threat to U.S., says Biden

Interesting.

Click to expand...

Politician Spock said:

johnnycakes said:

Does anyone think we're going to do anything more than lob some cruise missiles? Hopefully they'd have some intel on Assad's location, and if accurate, that could presumably depose him permanently.

Click to expand...

We will do whatever it takes to provoke Iran to take their first swing at us.... so then we respond by releasing hell on earth on them. The only reason our involvement in this whole Syria mess makes any sense to me as how much it outrages Iran. We're trying to pick a fight with them. We're teasing them so they'll punch first.

Click to expand...

TheIronSheik said:

Syria a threat to U.S., says Biden

Interesting.

Click to expand...

Vice President Joe Biden made clear the administration's view of who was to blame, telling the American Legion that "there is no doubt who is responsible for the heinous use of chemical weapons -- the Syrian regime."

Click to expand...

Gr00vus said:

TheIronSheik said:

Syria a threat to U.S., says Biden

Interesting.

Click to expand...

Where is that quote in the article? I'm not finding it.

The only mention of Biden I see is:

Vice President Joe Biden made clear the administration's view of who was to blame, telling the American Legion that "there is no doubt who is responsible for the heinous use of chemical weapons -- the Syrian regime."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The president continued to review options, Carney said, adding that "nothing has been decided" but assuring reporters some sort of response will come.

"Allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present a significant challenge to or threat to the United States' national security," he said.

Click to expand...

cstu said:

Politician Spock said:

johnnycakes said:

Does anyone think we're going to do anything more than lob some cruise missiles? Hopefully they'd have some intel on Assad's location, and if accurate, that could presumably depose him permanently.

Click to expand...

We will do whatever it takes to provoke Iran to take their first swing at us.... so then we respond by releasing hell on earth on them. The only reason our involvement in this whole Syria mess makes any sense to me as how much it outrages Iran. We're trying to pick a fight with them. We're teasing them so they'll punch first.

Click to expand...

You act like Iran has any true allegiance to anyone besides Iran. They are just

Click to expand...

Politician Spock said:

cstu said:

Politician Spock said:

johnnycakes said:

Does anyone think we're going to do anything more than lob some cruise missiles? Hopefully they'd have some intel on Assad's location, and if accurate, that could presumably depose him permanently.

Click to expand...

We will do whatever it takes to provoke Iran to take their first swing at us.... so then we respond by releasing hell on earth on them. The only reason our involvement in this whole Syria mess makes any sense to me as how much it outrages Iran. We're trying to pick a fight with them. We're teasing them so they'll punch first.

Click to expand...

You act like Iran has any true allegiance to anyone besides Iran. They are just

Click to expand...

So you say.

I've read thousands of other opinions that say the opposite to yours. The Iran-Syrian relationship is pretty strong. Iran doesn't take it lightly when we #### with Syria.

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Gr00vus said:

TheIronSheik said:

Syria a threat to U.S., says Biden

Interesting.

Click to expand...

Where is that quote in the article? I'm not finding it.

The only mention of Biden I see is:

Vice President Joe Biden made clear the administration's view of who was to blame, telling the American Legion that "there is no doubt who is responsible for the heinous use of chemical weapons -- the Syrian regime."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hm Carney:

The president continued to review options, Carney said, adding that "nothing has been decided" but assuring reporters some sort of response will come.

"Allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present a significant challenge to or threat to the United States' national security," he said.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Politician Spock said:

cstu said:

Politician Spock said:

johnnycakes said:

Does anyone think we're going to do anything more than lob some cruise missiles? Hopefully they'd have some intel on Assad's location, and if accurate, that could presumably depose him permanently.

Click to expand...

We will do whatever it takes to provoke Iran to take their first swing at us.... so then we respond by releasing hell on earth on them. The only reason our involvement in this whole Syria mess makes any sense to me as how much it outrages Iran. We're trying to pick a fight with them. We're teasing them so they'll punch first.

Click to expand...

You act like Iran has any true allegiance to anyone besides Iran. They are just

Click to expand...

So you say.

I've read thousands of other opinions that say the opposite to yours. The Iran-Syrian Hezzbollah relationship is pretty strong. Iran doesn't take it lightly when we #### with Syria - Hezbollah

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Politician Spock said:

cstu said:

Politician Spock said:

johnnycakes said:

Does anyone think we're going to do anything more than lob some cruise missiles? Hopefully they'd have some intel on Assad's location, and if accurate, that could presumably depose him permanently.

Click to expand...

We will do whatever it takes to provoke Iran to take their first swing at us.... so then we respond by releasing hell on earth on them. The only reason our involvement in this whole Syria mess makes any sense to me as how much it outrages Iran. We're trying to pick a fight with them. We're teasing them so they'll punch first.

Click to expand...

You act like Iran has any true allegiance to anyone besides Iran. They are just

Click to expand...

So you say.

I've read thousands of other opinions that say the opposite to yours. The Iran-Syrian relationship is pretty strong. Iran doesn't take it lightly when we #### with Syria.

Click to expand...

Iran's got a lot invested there.

Yes there is a string running from Syria to Iran, yank on it and....

Click to expand...

Gr00vus said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Gr00vus said:

TheIronSheik said:

Syria a threat to U.S., says Biden

Interesting.

Click to expand...

Where is that quote in the article? I'm not finding it.

The only mention of Biden I see is:

Vice President Joe Biden made clear the administration's view of who was to blame, telling the American Legion that "there is no doubt who is responsible for the heinous use of chemical weapons -- the Syrian regime."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hm Carney:

The president continued to review options, Carney said, adding that "nothing has been decided" but assuring reporters some sort of response will come.

"Allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present a significant challenge to or threat to the United States' national security," he said.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Click to expand...

MaxThreshold said:

So what's' the plan? Drop some bombs? Go in with troops?

Click to expand...

Dr. Gobbler said:

You would think that with everyone up in arms about chemical weapons over in Syria there would be more people in the United States up in arms about the chemicals in our food supply and our prescription medications. I guess if the delivery system is delicious there is no problem. Remember, the people that brought you Agent Orange are also the same people who are bringing you GMO grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes etc. I'm sure it's all on the up and up.

Click to expand...

Rich Conway said:

Plorfu said:

If one of your immediate reactions to an event is to defend your party and bash the other rather than just discuss the issue, you're a hack. You might be well-read and intelligent, but you're a hack.

Click to expand...

One of my immediate reactions is usually to bash whichever party is a good target. Conveniently, many situations allow me to bash both parties.

Click to expand...

johnnycakes said:

jamny said:

johnnycakes said:

Does anyone think we're going to do anything more than lob some cruise missiles? Hopefully they'd have some intel on Assad's location, and if accurate, that could presumably depose him permanently.

Click to expand...

I think that's all that will happen but it will be at military/chemical facilities, not at Assad directly.

Click to expand...

I'm getting visions of many, many civilian casualties that would be a PR nightmare for the U.S. I wonder if Assad is storing those weapons in or around populated areas to make such a strike very, very difficult without many civilian casualties. This isn't WWII anymore where we'd just firebomb the whole city.

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Tell ya what, I would love it if the Obama that people loved in 2008 showed up:

- Pull a Reagan, meet with Ruhani in a neutral site (the Rejkjavik of the ME would be.... ?) and settle the nukes issue, settle the Syria issue, normalize relations, and leave the SOB Assad hanging in the cold while doing something to cement world peace, American peace and create an actual legacy.

That would be bold, brilliant and move him from mediocre to top quartile of presidents, in one fell swoop.

ETA: We were suppsoed to get a new kind of thinking, smart power; instead we just have the same old thinking, same old approach.

Click to expand...

CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned.

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.

U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.

"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

In contrast to today's wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein's widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.

In the documents, the CIA said that Iran might not discover persuasive evidence of the weapons' use -- even though the agency possessed it. Also, the agency noted that the Soviet Union had previously used chemical agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions.

It has been previously reported that the United States provided tactical intelligence to Iraq at the same time that officials suspected Hussein would use chemical weapons. But the CIA documents, which sat almost entirely unnoticed in a trove of declassified material at the National Archives in College Park, Md., combined with exclusive interviews with former intelligence officials, reveal new details about the depth of the United States' knowledge of how and when Iraq employed the deadly agents. They show that senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.

Click to expand...

johnnycakes said:

NCCommish said:

Cliff Clavin said:

NCCommish said:

jamny said:

NCCommish said:

jamny said:

johnnycakes said:

Does anyone think we're going to do anything more than lob some cruise missiles? Hopefully they'd have some intel on Assad's location, and if accurate, that could presumably depose him permanently.

Click to expand...

I think that's all that will happen but it will be at military/chemical facilities, not at Assad directly.

Click to expand...

No we will not strike chemical targets. There is too much risk involved with that.

Click to expand...

Well maybe not the chemicals themselves but I'm sure they'll look to severely limit the ability to use them again.

Click to expand...

They will likely hit standard military targets. They have already said they won't try to target Assad or the government. This will be pretty limited IMO and will be more along the lines of a message delivery. Now if we decided to to go No Fly Zone then you might see something more intense. But with Syria's very formidable air defenses I think we'll hold off on that or we will have casualties.

Click to expand...

However, the effectiveness of this system as a whole is in doubt. Territorial losses to the rebels mean that some key sites have been lost to the government, and the Israeli air force has demonstrated that it can hit targets inside Syria with impunity (though some of the strikes may well have been made using stand-off weapons).

Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23849386

Click to expand...

Thanks for the update. I was going off my prior knowledge didn't realize the system had been so compromised.

Click to expand...

If they were going to send aircraft over Syrian airspace, don't you think it would first be with B2s? Way, way too much risk to have AAA taking out a non-stealthy aircraft.

When thinking about the complexity of this problem, "stay the bleep out" doesn't seem like such a bad option. too bad the 0 had to open his big mouf about use of chemical weapons being a game changer. Now he has to put up or shut up. And the President of the US having to shut up really isn't an option, either.

Click to expand...

DiStefano said:

Of course what is happening is a tragedy for the people of Syria. But there are tragedies going on in the Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia too.

The question I have is: Will it be helpful for the US if Assad wins? NO.

Will it be helpful for the US if the rebels win? NO. Because the Al Qaida groups are better organized and will dominate the post Assad time.

Will it be helpful for the US if they keep fighting each other instead of focusing on making trouble for us? YES.

There's your answer.

Click to expand...

tommyGunZ said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Tell ya what, I would love it if the Obama that people loved in 2008 showed up:

- Pull a Reagan, meet with Ruhani in a neutral site (the Rejkjavik of the ME would be.... ?) and settle the nukes issue, settle the Syria issue, normalize relations, and leave the SOB Assad hanging in the cold while doing something to cement world peace, American peace and create an actual legacy.

That would be bold, brilliant and move him from mediocre to top quartile of presidents, in one fell swoop.

ETA: We were suppsoed to get a new kind of thinking, smart power; instead we just have the same old thinking, same old approach.

Click to expand...

When you say, "pull a Reagan", do you mean we should help Assad gas more innocents?

CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned.

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.

U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.

"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

In contrast to today's wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein's widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.

In the documents, the CIA said that Iran might not discover persuasive evidence of the weapons' use -- even though the agency possessed it. Also, the agency noted that the Soviet Union had previously used chemical agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions.

It has been previously reported that the United States provided tactical intelligence to Iraq at the same time that officials suspected Hussein would use chemical weapons. But the CIA documents, which sat almost entirely unnoticed in a trove of declassified material at the National Archives in College Park, Md., combined with exclusive interviews with former intelligence officials, reveal new details about the depth of the United States' knowledge of how and when Iraq employed the deadly agents. They show that senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

DiStefano said:

Of course what is happening is a tragedy for the people of Syria. But there are tragedies going on in the Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia too.

The question I have is: Will it be helpful for the US if Assad wins? NO.

Will it be helpful for the US if the rebels win? NO. Because the Al Qaida groups are better organized and will dominate the post Assad time.

Will it be helpful for the US if they keep fighting each other instead of focusing on making trouble for us? YES.

There's your answer.

Click to expand...

No. IMO, stability is what would benefit us the most. Either a complete Assad victory or a complete rebel victory. Putting aside all moral considerations, stability means the price of world oil remains steady. Instability in that region threatens oil production, causes speculators to make the price go up, which in turn will affect our prices at the pump even though we don't get our oil directly from Iran. In the end, that's the name of the game.

Click to expand...

Dr. Gobbler said:

You would think that with everyone up in arms about chemical weapons over in Syria there would be more people in the United States up in arms about the chemicals in our food supply and our prescription medications. I guess if the delivery system is delicious there is no problem. Remember, the people that brought you Agent Orange are also the same people who are bringing you GMO grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes etc. I'm sure it's all on the up and up.

Click to expand...

Ilov80s said:

Dr. Gobbler said:

You would think that with everyone up in arms about chemical weapons over in Syria there would be more people in the United States up in arms about the chemicals in our food supply and our prescription medications. I guess if the delivery system is delicious there is no problem. Remember, the people that brought you Agent Orange are also the same people who are bringing you GMO grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes etc. I'm sure it's all on the up and up.

Click to expand...

#1 Eat a twinkie and then breathe in some sarin gas. While you are lying on the floor, twitching, vomiting and defecating in your pants, you can think about the evil twinkie.

#2 There are chemicals in our food? The food itself is made of chemicals. Water is a chemical. Air is made of chemicals. Everything is a chemical. So just because you call something a chemical, that does not mean it is bad.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

The possibility of going to war with Syria has attracted 2,000 views.

Miley Cyrus looking like an idiot at the MTV Awards has attracted 4,500 views.

It's always nice to know that we at the FFA share the priorities of the rest of America.

Click to expand...

johnnycakes said:

timschochet said:

DiStefano said:

Of course what is happening is a tragedy for the people of Syria. But there are tragedies going on in the Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia too.

The question I have is: Will it be helpful for the US if Assad wins? NO.

Will it be helpful for the US if the rebels win? NO. Because the Al Qaida groups are better organized and will dominate the post Assad time.

Will it be helpful for the US if they keep fighting each other instead of focusing on making trouble for us? YES.

There's your answer.

Click to expand...

No. IMO, stability is what would benefit us the most. Either a complete Assad victory or a complete rebel victory. Putting aside all moral considerations, stability means the price of world oil remains steady. Instability in that region threatens oil production, causes speculators to make the price go up, which in turn will affect our prices at the pump even though we don't get our oil directly from Iran. In the end, that's the name of the game.

Click to expand...

OK, but 0bama has drawn a line in the sand as far as chemical weapons go. He's now between a rock and a hard place. If he just sits back and lets everyone slug it out, everyone is going to laugh at him the next time he tries something like that. That comment really puts him in a position where he has to do something or lose face big-time, which is NOT in the best interest of any Americans, regardless of political affiliation.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

DiStefano said:

Of course what is happening is a tragedy for the people of Syria. But there are tragedies going on in the Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia too.

The question I have is: Will it be helpful for the US if Assad wins? NO.

Will it be helpful for the US if the rebels win? NO. Because the Al Qaida groups are better organized and will dominate the post Assad time.

Will it be helpful for the US if they keep fighting each other instead of focusing on making trouble for us? YES.

There's your answer.

Click to expand...

No. IMO, stability is what would benefit us the most. Either a complete Assad victory or a complete rebel victory. Putting aside all moral considerations, stability means the price of world oil remains steady. Instability in that region threatens oil production, causes speculators to make the price go up, which in turn will affect our prices at the pump even though we don't get our oil directly from Iran. In the end, that's the name of the game.

Click to expand...

DiStefano said:

timschochet said:

DiStefano said:

Of course what is happening is a tragedy for the people of Syria. But there are tragedies going on in the Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia too.

The question I have is: Will it be helpful for the US if Assad wins? NO.

Will it be helpful for the US if the rebels win? NO. Because the Al Qaida groups are better organized and will dominate the post Assad time.

Will it be helpful for the US if they keep fighting each other instead of focusing on making trouble for us? YES.

There's your answer.

Click to expand...

No. IMO, stability is what would benefit us the most. Either a complete Assad victory or a complete rebel victory. Putting aside all moral considerations, stability means the price of world oil remains steady. Instability in that region threatens oil production, causes speculators to make the price go up, which in turn will affect our prices at the pump even though we don't get our oil directly from Iran. In the end, that's the name of the game.

Click to expand...

Instabilty has worked just fine for the last two years. What is making things dicey right now is the sense that we are going to severely rock the boat. We don't need to; we just need to make sure that neither side wins.

Click to expand...

ffldrew said:

Politician Spock said:

cstu said:

Politician Spock said:

johnnycakes said:

Does anyone think we're going to do anything more than lob some cruise missiles? Hopefully they'd have some intel on Assad's location, and if accurate, that could presumably depose him permanently.

Click to expand...

We will do whatever it takes to provoke Iran to take their first swing at us.... so then we respond by releasing hell on earth on them. The only reason our involvement in this whole Syria mess makes any sense to me as how much it outrages Iran. We're trying to pick a fight with them. We're teasing them so they'll punch first.

Click to expand...

You act like Iran has any true allegiance to anyone besides Iran. They are just

Click to expand...

So you say.

I've read thousands of other opinions that say the opposite to yours. The Iran-Syrian Hezzbollah relationship is pretty strong. Iran doesn't take it lightly when we #### with Syria - Hezbollah

Click to expand...

Fixed your above comment

Many would argue that Assad is taking orders from Hezbollah - or at least has to do most of what they say - or else he's done internally. I'm sure his insider network is infiltrated with plenty of them and he would be the easy take down. It is why many speculate he went from "westerner" leanings - to hardliner.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

DiStefano said:

timschochet said:

DiStefano said:

Of course what is happening is a tragedy for the people of Syria. But there are tragedies going on in the Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia too.

The question I have is: Will it be helpful for the US if Assad wins? NO.

Will it be helpful for the US if the rebels win? NO. Because the Al Qaida groups are better organized and will dominate the post Assad time.

Will it be helpful for the US if they keep fighting each other instead of focusing on making trouble for us? YES.

There's your answer.

Click to expand...

No. IMO, stability is what would benefit us the most. Either a complete Assad victory or a complete rebel victory. Putting aside all moral considerations, stability means the price of world oil remains steady. Instability in that region threatens oil production, causes speculators to make the price go up, which in turn will affect our prices at the pump even though we don't get our oil directly from Iran. In the end, that's the name of the game.

Click to expand...

Instabilty has worked just fine for the last two years. What is making things dicey right now is the sense that we are going to severely rock the boat. We don't need to; we just need to make sure that neither side wins.

Click to expand...

Just fine for who?

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

The possibility of going to war with Syria has attracted 2,000 views.

Miley Cyrus looking like an idiot at the MTV Awards has attracted 4,500 views.

It's always nice to know that we at the FFA share the priorities of the rest of America.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

johnnycakes said:

timschochet said:

DiStefano said:

Of course what is happening is a tragedy for the people of Syria. But there are tragedies going on in the Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia too.

The question I have is: Will it be helpful for the US if Assad wins? NO.

Will it be helpful for the US if the rebels win? NO. Because the Al Qaida groups are better organized and will dominate the post Assad time.

Will it be helpful for the US if they keep fighting each other instead of focusing on making trouble for us? YES.

There's your answer.

Click to expand...

No. IMO, stability is what would benefit us the most. Either a complete Assad victory or a complete rebel victory. Putting aside all moral considerations, stability means the price of world oil remains steady. Instability in that region threatens oil production, causes speculators to make the price go up, which in turn will affect our prices at the pump even though we don't get our oil directly from Iran. In the end, that's the name of the game.

Click to expand...

OK, but 0bama has drawn a line in the sand as far as chemical weapons go. He's now between a rock and a hard place. If he just sits back and lets everyone slug it out, everyone is going to laugh at him the next time he tries something like that. That comment really puts him in a position where he has to do something or lose face big-time, which is NOT in the best interest of any Americans, regardless of political affiliation.

Click to expand...

All he's done is condemned it and said this is "very serious". Bill Clinton condemned Saddam dozens of times, and even publicly called for "regime change". But he wasn't stupid enough to actually do it.

Click to expand...

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.

Q So you're confident it’s somehow under -- it's safe?

THE PRESIDENT: In a situation this volatile, I wouldn’t say that I am absolutely confident. What I’m saying is we’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans. We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculations significantly.

Click to expand...

johnnycakes said:

Ilov80s said:

Dr. Gobbler said:

You would think that with everyone up in arms about chemical weapons over in Syria there would be more people in the United States up in arms about the chemicals in our food supply and our prescription medications. I guess if the delivery system is delicious there is no problem. Remember, the people that brought you Agent Orange are also the same people who are bringing you GMO grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes etc. I'm sure it's all on the up and up.

Click to expand...

#1 Eat a twinkie and then breathe in some sarin gas. While you are lying on the floor, twitching, vomiting and defecating in your pants, you can think about the evil twinkie.

#2 There are chemicals in our food? The food itself is made of chemicals. Water is a chemical. Air is made of chemicals. Everything is a chemical. So just because you call something a chemical, that does not mean it is bad.

Click to expand...

psssst..... I'm eating Doritos right now... will I glow in the dark?

Click to expand...

Dr. Gobbler said:

johnnycakes said:

Ilov80s said:

Dr. Gobbler said:

You would think that with everyone up in arms about chemical weapons over in Syria there would be more people in the United States up in arms about the chemicals in our food supply and our prescription medications. I guess if the delivery system is delicious there is no problem. Remember, the people that brought you Agent Orange are also the same people who are bringing you GMO grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes etc. I'm sure it's all on the up and up.

Click to expand...

#1 Eat a twinkie and then breathe in some sarin gas. While you are lying on the floor, twitching, vomiting and defecating in your pants, you can think about the evil twinkie.

#2 There are chemicals in our food? The food itself is made of chemicals. Water is a chemical. Air is made of chemicals. Everything is a chemical. So just because you call something a chemical, that does not mean it is bad.

Click to expand...

psssst..... I'm eating Doritos right now... will I glow in the dark?

Click to expand...

You guys can be trite all you want. I'm just saying enjoy your Gatorade with fire ######ant as one of the ingredients. Enjoy your oranges spliced with frog genes. Enjoy your GMO wheat products with that little opiate called gliadin or the or the new allergies being generated by the new alpha amylases of modern wheat. Enjoy the glyphosate from your Round Up ready corn and soy products. We'll be seeing your posts shortly enough with titles like 'I have the big Casino' and 'My kid is all ###### up'.Carry on you big beautiful monkeys.

Click to expand...

Dr. Gobbler said:

johnnycakes said:

Ilov80s said:

Dr. Gobbler said:

You would think that with everyone up in arms about chemical weapons over in Syria there would be more people in the United States up in arms about the chemicals in our food supply and our prescription medications. I guess if the delivery system is delicious there is no problem. Remember, the people that brought you Agent Orange are also the same people who are bringing you GMO grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes etc. I'm sure it's all on the up and up.

Click to expand...

#1 Eat a twinkie and then breathe in some sarin gas. While you are lying on the floor, twitching, vomiting and defecating in your pants, you can think about the evil twinkie.

#2 There are chemicals in our food? The food itself is made of chemicals. Water is a chemical. Air is made of chemicals. Everything is a chemical. So just because you call something a chemical, that does not mean it is bad.

Click to expand...

psssst..... I'm eating Doritos right now... will I glow in the dark?

Click to expand...

You guys can be trite all you want. I'm just saying enjoy your Gatorade with fire ######ant as one of the ingredients. Enjoy your oranges spliced with frog genes. Enjoy your GMO wheat products with that little opiate called gliadin or the or the new allergies being generated by the new alpha amylases of modern wheat. Enjoy the glyphosate from your Round Up ready corn and soy products. We'll be seeing your posts shortly enough with titles like 'I have the big Casino' and 'My kid is all ###### up'.Carry on you big beautiful monkeys.

Click to expand...

Dr. Gobbler said:

johnnycakes said:

Ilov80s said:

Dr. Gobbler said:

You would think that with everyone up in arms about chemical weapons over in Syria there would be more people in the United States up in arms about the chemicals in our food supply and our prescription medications. I guess if the delivery system is delicious there is no problem. Remember, the people that brought you Agent Orange are also the same people who are bringing you GMO grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes etc. I'm sure it's all on the up and up.

Click to expand...

#1 Eat a twinkie and then breathe in some sarin gas. While you are lying on the floor, twitching, vomiting and defecating in your pants, you can think about the evil twinkie.

#2 There are chemicals in our food? The food itself is made of chemicals. Water is a chemical. Air is made of chemicals. Everything is a chemical. So just because you call something a chemical, that does not mean it is bad.

Click to expand...

psssst..... I'm eating Doritos right now... will I glow in the dark?

Click to expand...

You guys can be trite all you want. I'm just saying enjoy your Gatorade with fire ######ant as one of the ingredients. Enjoy your oranges spliced with frog genes. Enjoy your GMO wheat products with that little opiate called gliadin or the or the new allergies being generated by the new alpha amylases of modern wheat. Enjoy the glyphosate from your Round Up ready corn and soy products. We'll be seeing your posts shortly enough with titles like 'I have the big Casino' and 'My kid is all ###### up'.Carry on you big beautiful monkeys.

Click to expand...