Questioning What's going on in Syria

[Pam]

We live in weird times- people on all sides are beating the drums for war in Syria, while Tucker Carlson on Fox has questions. Worth a listen. Glenn Greenwald guests on the second clip.

https://youtu.be/cSGf2ZpDENU


https://youtu.be/V-yba3R6IBY

[oladub]

I have already written my four elected representatives in Washington, D.C. requesting that they not attack Syria and completely disengage there. The time to write letters is now before missiles fly. The US has created enough death, destruction, and refugees there already thanks to Obama, Kerry, Hillary, and now Trump. There are better places for our troops and for our national wealth to be spent.

[Richard]

^ it is to late to put that horse back in the barn.

Now it is Iran,Assad and Russia against the west,Russia wants the Middle East foothold and if they get it,it will not stop there.

It is the Cold War being played out on Syrian soil,it did not help matters when Assad was systematically wiping out the groups that they did not like,we opposed it in WW2 but it still continues in Africa and Burma.

The Middle East has been in a state of war for 2000 years,if Russia pulls out and we pull out and let them have at it,but then there is the whole ISIS thing of them wanting to kill everybody that they do not agree with also and they are a dedicated bunch.

If previous administration had gone in there and taken care with resolve then it would have never spiraled out of control,now it is like we are traverseing the world with a broom and dustpan sweeping up all of the messes created.

I do not get the whole Hilliary concept of going in and destabilize then get out leaving a big mess and effecting millions of lives,anybody else would
have been brought up on war crimes let alone the humane aspect.

People freak out with Trump and his fingers on the button that he cannot push and completely forget about the ones that have buttons and do not need any permission to push and they are justified because of the evil west.

[Zacha341]

Trump signals strike...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-m...-idUSKBN1HI1BY

[Richard]

He is buying time with rhetoric until they can find out what gas was used,chlorine is not illegal and you cannot use that as a springboard,sarin or some others would provide legal justification for a counter attack.

[oladub]

He is buying time with rhetoric until they can find out what gas was used,chlorine is not illegal and you cannot use that as a springboard,sarin or some others would provide legal justification for a counter attack.

There are no "legal" justifications for an attack. It can't be a "counter attack" because no one attacked the U.S.. It makes no logical sense that Assad would use gas because Syria is winning its civil war against ISIS and other rebels especially after Trump was recently talking about getting out. It could just as well be a black flag operation. It doesn't matter. As long as Americans weren't involved it's none of our business. Bombing a country is an act of war. The Constitution requires that Congress declare wars. If Trump attacks Syria by executive order, he is no better than Obama attacking Libya.

U.S. diplomacy should be doing everything possible to accommodate peace in Syria so millions of Syrian refugees can return home instead of creating more carnage and refugees.

[Richard]

^ ISIS has their own agenda,to create a country of their own by taking advantage of the turmoil.

Assad is socialist dictator.

Assad if fighting a two front war,trying to keep ISIS from taking the country and trying to eliminate the people from his country that does not walk his line.

Russia and Iran are on board with his agenda and methods.

The rebels are the opposition of Assad or persay the democratic aspect,if Assad wins,the millions of refugees will not be able to return home because Assad wants to eliminate them.

Russia wants a stronger presence in the Middle East.

Iran wants to beef up thier standing in the Middle East and prefers the Russian door number one verses the western door number two.

Sryia is just the play ground,to them it is about religion,to us and Russia it is about power struggles.

On one hand we have no business there but on the other hand we have allies there that will be next in line and at that point we will forced into war.

I think that the attack in the U.K. and the recent gas attack was staged in order to create support for a heavy intervention,but there is also a lot going on behind the curtain that we will never know about,we are only seeing a snap shot of the bigger picture.

Over there they are like the hard line left here,they just want to eliminate everybody that does not have their POV and have a country of like minded individuals,always has been always will be.

The problem is when they start over there every body cries poor refugees and brings them to every other country and that forces them to get involved.That in its self costs billions to implement so anyways you look at it the cost factor is there and you are involved,like it or not.

[aj3647]

He is buying time with rhetoric until they can find out what gas was used,chlorine is not illegal and you cannot use that as a springboard,sarin or some others would provide legal justification for a counter attack.

Syria is a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits chlorine from being used as a weapon. Although chlorine as a chemical is not illegal, it's use as a weapon on the battlefield is most certainly illegal under international law.

He's "buying time with rhetoric?" What does he need to "buy time" for? No one will do anything until Trump decides what, if anything, he wants to do. There's no need to buy time. Russia isn't doing anything except taking a defensive posture. Ditto with Syria. American allies won't act without American support. So there's no clock ticking except for the one that Trump imposed on HIMSELF with his foolish, impulsive, short-sighted tweet and "major decision in 24-48 hours" statement that he made THREE days ago.

He could keep his stupid fat mouth shut and accomplish the same thing if the goal is to wait and discover evidence that a nerve agent was used.

It makes no logical sense that Assad would use gas because Syria is winning its civil war against ISIS and other rebels especially after Trump was recently talking about getting out.

Have you considered the distinct possibility that Trump unilaterally announcing his intention to quickly withdraw U.S. forces from Syria might have emboldened the Assad regime to use chemical weapons? Which, BTW, would be the exact same thing that Trump heavily criticized Obama for [[publicly announcing troop withdrawals)?

[Richard]

How come you do not jump on a plane and take control of the situation,I would think the president has a little more insite to what is really going on then you or I.

You ever play the game of blink?

It seemed to work pretty well with rocket man when half of the country was freaking out how he was bringing us into nuclear war.

Try setting the hate aside long enough and watch how he operates,he always starts with the highest possible course of action then you negotiate down from there.

You have never done that?

Both Syria and Iran have both used chemical attacks in their fights in the past,what are you going to do spank them with a belt and say do not do that again,they did it before and got away with it.

You may say he has a stupid fat mouth but once again at the end of the day he is the president and you are not,so who is the stupid one?

[aj3647]

How come you do not jump on a plane and take control of the situation,I would think the president has a little more insite to what is really going on then you or I.

You think Trump has insight into anything? You're the only one then. Every time he impulsively tweets something objectively stupid, the actual people who have insight at the State Department and the Defense Department are face-palming and spinning into damage-control mode, because our child-like President just made their jobs infinitely harder.

But you're right, I'll sit back and watch how Trump handles it. I'm sure it will be a rousing success, just like last year's missile attack on Syria was a huge success and Syria hasn't used chemical weapons since Trump so successfully spanked them and put them in their place. Oh wait...

[Zacha341]

Here's the deal: Trump's in pure tweet/ reactionary mode ignoring an obvious flip-flop of initially not engaging with Syria to now let's bomb away! Wisdom would have him at least pull back a bit to fully examine what's going on [[did Assad actually do it?), using discretion. England is investigating. Instead we're on with the war party with the tweets and doubling down?

Mind you there are war mongers on the left [[Dems) who have stake ala the seeming 'bi-partisan' military industrial complex.

Watch and observe who and what media a. remains silent re. Trump's/ Bolton's/ McCain's et al response towards war b. endorses such c. is against the action. Good hunting!

[Richard]

You think Trump has insight into anything? You're the only one then. Every time he impulsively tweets something objectively stupid, the actual people who have insight at the State Department and the Defense Department are face-palming and spinning into damage-control mode, because our child-like President just made their jobs infinitely harder.

But you're right, I'll sit back and watch how Trump handles it. I'm sure it will be a rousing success, just like last year's missile attack on Syria was a huge success and Syria hasn't used chemical weapons since Trump so successfully spanked them and put them in their place. Oh wait...

You are thinking that they all just do their little thing up there and not talking to each other?

He knows what is going on every second of the day,tweets or not.

[oladub]

Have you considered the distinct possibility that Trump unilaterally announcing his intention to quickly withdraw U.S. forces from Syria might have emboldened the Assad regime to use chemical weapons? Which, BTW, would be the exact same thing that Trump heavily criticized Obama for [[publicly announcing troop withdrawals)?

aj, You've been snorting McCain again haven't you?

[Maof]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyOPm-TXkSs

"oil, keep the oil, we didn't keep the oil, who got the oil, keep the oil"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...74422587965440

I don't think he knows what's going on.

[Zacha341]

I hear Trump back-peddled on the imminent threat to Syria but I've not been able find a link to verify. In any event who makes the serious pronouncements he's be making hastily, w/o evidence and via Twitter......?

[aj3647]

aj, You've been snorting McCain again haven't you?

Ah, there's the type of fact-based rebuttal I've come to expect from you.

Timeline of the situation in Douma:

March 2018: A Syrian Army offensive splits East Ghouta into three rebel-held pockets.

March 21-23: Rebel groups Ahrar al-Sham and Faylaq al-Rahman cut evacuation deals with the government. Rebel fighters and their families are evacuated by the government to rebel-held Idlib in Northern Syria and the Syrian government rolls into two of the three rebel-held pockets unopposed. This leaves Douma as the sole remaining rebel pocket.

March 28 - April 1: The Jaish al-Islam rebel group, which controls the Douma pocket, negotiates with the Russians for an evacuation deal. The Syrian Army makes preparations to storm Douma by force if negotiations fail.

April 1-4: A few hundred people are evacuated from Douma as part of the negotiations. Internal disagreement within Jaish al-Islam results in the collapse of the negotiations and the end of the evacuation from Douma.

April 3: Donald Trump tells military leaders to begin planning the "immediate withdrawal" of U.S. troops from Syria.

April 6: Russia and Syria resume bombardment of rebel-held Douma as the SAA prepares for a brutal full-scale ground invasion and urban warfare.

April 7: An alleged chemical attack on Douma kills 70 people and sickens 500.

April 8 [[one day after the chemical attack): Jaish al-Islam surrenders Douma to the Russians in exchange for evacuation. Russian military police roll into Douma unopposed, the entire pocket is seized without so much as a single government or Russian casualty.


Now oladub, if you examine the events of April 6-8, you tell me who might have had a motivation to use chemical weapons, why they would do so, why they would choose that particularly time and place, and whether or not the use of chemical weapons achieved their intended strategic purpose. On April 6, the SAA and the Russians were faced with the potential of weeks of brutal street-to-street fighting to seize that pocket. It likely would have come at the cost of hundreds of government soldiers killed and wounded. Then, the next day, an airstrike allegedly rains down chlorine gas mixed with nerve agent, killing dozens. Then, faced with the threat of further chemical assault, the rebels decide they don't want to fight anymore. Russia and Assad take the whole pocket without a shot being fired.

But yeah, I guess it's totally unreasonable to suspect that maybe Assad did it, right? And of course, if Assad in the days prior got some kind of signal from the international community [[or one country in particular) that made him think they'd be less inclined to intervene if he did use chemical weapons, would that make him MORE likely or LESS likely to want to use them in a very advantageous situation that just presented itself?

Now, having said that, I'm not advocating a unilateral impulsive military response. But that doesn't mean I don't think Assad did it. He is, by far, the most likely culprit. And of course, Trump telling the world "we're leaving Syria" would be at the forefront of his mind as he weighed the pros and cons of using chemical weapons again.

[Richard]

I heard Trump back-peddled on the imminent threat to Syria but I've not been able find a link to verify. In any event who makes the serious pronouncements he's be making hastily, w/o evidence and via Twitter......?

It keeps people guessing and unable to predict the next move so maybe think twice about making their moves.

Who would you be more wary of someone predictable or someone unpredictable?

We all know if you come across as a pushover they will roll right over.

Some feel that he comes across as a baboon but he is not as dumb as some think he is or wish him to be.

The markets are strong,if they thought instability was heading this way there would be a lot of red in there.

But of course you drive so you are privlaged and it would not effect you anyways lol

[oladub]

aj, Thanks for proving me correct about your snorting McCain. How many people are you willing to unconstitutionally kill in Syria and for what? Do you think you represent other Democrats as a hawk?

[Pam]

Rep. Gabbard:

https://youtu.be/3G2tPs3aZyU

[aj3647]

aj, Thanks for proving me correct about your snorting McCain. How many people are you willing to unconstitutionally kill in Syria and for what? Do you think you represent other Democrats as a hawk?

I'm not killing anyone in Syria, because I'm not the President. Nor is John McCain, for that matter. Trump is. If a single human being dies in Syria as a result of U.S. military action, the person solely responsible for that is one Donald John Trump, and indirectly, those who put him into office and continue to support/defend him. People like you.

In case you're curious who Russia thinks is responsible, well they're blaming the Brits, of course. Russia is saying the UK staged the whole thing.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ncy/514039002/

So either Assad [[a guy with a long and well-documented history of both murdering his own people and using chemical weapons) did it, to force the Douma rebels to surrender [[which they promptly did), or the British murdered a bunch of Syrian civilians including kids and dressed it up to look like it was Assad that did it. I guess we'll each have to make up our own minds as to which scenario is most plausible and likely.

[Canadian Visitor]

There are no "legal" justifications for an attack. It can't be a "counter attack" because no one attacked the U.S.. It makes no logical sense that Assad would use gas because Syria is winning its civil war against ISIS and other rebels especially after Trump was recently talking about getting out. It could just as well be a black flag operation. It doesn't matter. As long as Americans weren't involved it's none of our business. Bombing a country is an act of war. The Constitution requires that Congress declare wars. If Trump attacks Syria by executive order, he is no better than Obama attacking Libya.

U.S. diplomacy should be doing everything possible to accommodate peace in Syria so millions of Syrian refugees can return home instead of creating more carnage and refugees.

Now for something that doesn't happen every day.

Me agreeing w/Oladub. LOL

For me there are two clear issues.

One is the one that's been discussed by Oladub, does the U.S. under domestic law or international law have any right to 'bomb' in Syria, without Congressional approval?

To me the answer is a fairly clear "no". That is true regardless of what awfulness Assad is responsible for this week.

The list of misdeeds by countless countries around the world is long.

If the U.S. [[or any other large power) saw fit to intervene in every one of those cases we would have WWIII on our hands, not to mention a big, bloody and expensive mess which would end up benefiting no one [[excluding the stock holders of certain munitions makers)

The second, and this is every bit as important, if intervention is going to happen, will it be effective?

The easy answer here is, "No".

Had the United States been determined to remove Mr. Assad it could have done so years ago, as could most of the militaries that have been involved in the area.

They have chosen not to pursue this course of action.

To strike for the sake of doing so, and killing a few dozen of Assad's supporters or troops and likely many more innocent civilians will do nothing but prolong the agony.

If one is determined to intervene, as with Iraq and Afghanistan before, then one must be open and admit to what needs to follow.

First, a bloody, massive strike to obtain short-term control of the area, with ensuing troops on the ground. There will be loss of life, including American soldiers.

Second, to establish a new order to America's [[the west's) liking would require a 20-year long commitment and hundreds of billions of dollars at least.

You can't just plug in your new dictator of choice, walk away and assume it will hold. [[it won't).

But creating new schools, hospitals, courts, roads, economic systems, political systems etc. etc. is hideously expensive and time-consuming.

I don't think the U.S. [[or any other country) has the patience or desire to put that kind of time, money and effort into the endeavour.

Never start a fight you're not able and willing to win.

[Richard]

Yea that never stopped anybody before.

The problem with the Middle East is all of the different religions want their own country and have no problem wiping out those who have different views.

Always has been and always will be,it will never change,but when the genocide starts should we look the other way?

We could not even get our allies over there to create a coalition to deal with it because they would be infighting and useing it to wipe out the ones they do not like.

The ones that get displaced need to have a place to go,so we are involved one way or another.

I do not think there is no answer other then military practice,weapons testing and readiness.

But with Russian backing they would control the whole of the Middle East with the exception of the nuke ones.

[Pam]

Sky News cut off the former commander of British Armed Forces Jonathan Shaw over Syria

https://youtu.be/CpdT79rm1ts

[oladub]

aj, I was out advocating against the bombing before it happened [[see posts #2 and #6). You were silent. No, you were actually trying to provide a rationale to promote the neocon narrative in your preposterous last paragraph in post #8 and #16. I'm calling out Trump on this as being in league with Bush lying about WMD's, Clinton bombing Serbia for 78 days, and Obama overthrowing Khaddafi. When did you ever criticize Obama for his involvement in Libya and Syria? Again, as far as I know, you were silent or worse. It isn't just you of course. More importantly, it's every politician who said nothing or rationalized bombing Syria.

[Zacha341]

^^^ Well stated. Trumps so odiously bad [[the tweeting, flip-flopping, scandals, the firings et al) that many are more engaged in WHAT he has done/ doing, forgetting the war mongering, hypocrisy and intervention by preceding presidents, their people [[Clinton, Bush and Obama).

I say on this Syria issue judge Trump in commonality to the others not only in distinction. As the distinction is not all that crisp.

Those who voted for Trump have to be disappointed [[considering he pledged not be a drop-of-the-hat interventionist). But he's not setting a precedent per se. Funny the war thumpers are happy... having previously found him useless to their end. Their children will not have to die in any conflict, so they think.

As I said earlier when it comes to some beating the drums of war, we have bi-partisan motivations now, and historically. I am not full-out anti-military, but the maw of the broader military industrial complex must be fed...

Contractors to be paid. Long money to be exchanged.

Who'll be the next Lord of War?