Stats

Comments Posted By AdLib

Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments

U.S. Assessment of Syrian Gov’t Use of Chemical Weapons – Full Text

I think the UN investigation will help to confirm the case but my instinct on any claim of false flag attacks is that they aren’t accurate.

Historically, I can’t think of one major case where false flag was claimed and it turned out to be the case.

And it is more typical that the one behind an act accuses the victims of causing it.

Based on the assessment above, the details that the US flatly states the chemicals were delivered by rockets and artillery and that Assad’s chemical weapons team was in the area for three days before the attack, I would bet at this point that Assad is indeed behind this attack but I remain open to any evidence, especially the UN’s, that dispute that.

» Posted By AdLib On August 30, 2013 @ 4:24 pm

Great article, Itchybiscuit! Thanks for the link! I don’t know that there’s a great difference when it comes to the American people either.

People in both countries are fed up with making sacrifices so that military attacks on nations not threatening them can be attacked.

Does Assad deserve to get taken out for what he’s done? Yes but does it need to be done by an outside nation or does it need to be done by Syrians just as happened in other nations in the Arab Spring?

Again, I think the world should come together to take actions that punish Syria and Assad but more violence can only bring about even more violence.

» Posted By AdLib On August 30, 2013 @ 4:17 pm

You’ve put your finger on one of the key problems, both sides of the conflict are our enemies. So whatever we do, even if it isn’t our intention, we’re helping our enemies.

Part of me wants us to be able to do something to help stop Assad’s slaughter of his people but part of me is well aware how unpredictable the blowback can be from taking military action in a complicated situation.

Unless the world and the nation is behind an attack, the danger from doing so is increased exponentially. And if the world and the nation aren’t convinced that an attack is in their best interests, why should there be an attack?

I am rarely a supporter of the U.S. taking military action, I do think Assad’s use of chemical weapons, as seems likely, should be met with world condemnation and action but I don’t think military action is the answer.

» Posted By AdLib On August 30, 2013 @ 4:05 pm

Hey Itchybiscuit, I sure wish there had been this level of skepticism back when Bush was stampeding us to war in Iraq through lies and propaganda. It was very upsetting to watch so many being manipulated by fear.

Now, there is a healthy skepticism towards a military action based solely on the word of the President and that’s a good thing.

We need reliable third party verification, Congress needs to vote on any action and the American people need to be convinced to support any action.

But should we take action? Is the use of chemical weapons to kill over a thousand people more of a red line than the murder of 100,000 people using conventional weapons?

Or is making chemical weapons a red line just the trigger to take action that was desired while the 100,000 were killed?

Does the U.S. have a responsibility, as the world’s greatest military power, to step into civil wars and internal conflicts in other nations when crimes against humanity are taking place? What’s to say taking action won’t cause greater death and suffering?And what is the specific game plan and goal for a particular attack?

There are so many questions that need to be and should be answered before there’s any movement forward with a decision. That is why we NEED Congress to vote on this, we NEED these issues openly debated in front of the American people. And by doing so, it can help us really understand what we do and don’t want for our country and what cogent policy we have towards the rest of the world.

» Posted By AdLib On August 30, 2013 @ 3:36 pm

It’s a Mistake For Pres. Obama to Use Fear to Justify a Syria Strike

Hey goleafsgo, great seeing you!

What I was referring to in my post was a statement Obama made days before the speech you mention, in which he said that one important reason for taking military action against Syria was that if we didn’t punish them for using chemical weapons, they could use them against us.

Today, Kerry expressed that sentiment repeatedly, that Iran would feel freer in nuking Americans or Israel, North Korea would feel freer to use chemical weapons on South Korea and our military people there, etc.

I can’t say categorically that these things absolutely wouldn’t happen but I do feel that using such speculative fears to justify military force detract from valid reasons.

They violated the international laws and Geneva convention, even though they’re not signatories but global policy has been that any nation using weapons of mass destruction needs to be harshly sanctioned by the world.

Bush’s trumped up campaign for war in Iraq was wholly based on lies and whipping up fear. The situation with Syria is very different, the chemical weapons are not fictional, they’ve killed over 1,000 Syrians including hundreds of innocent children. And this isn’t the first time Assad has used chemical weapons.

So, agreed, this is not identical to Bush and Iraq. However, after that nightmare, I think the people deserve reasoned and logical arguments as to why there should be military force and in this post-Bush/Iraq era, arguments using fear, even those that are valid, should be given little focus.

» Posted By AdLib On September 3, 2013 @ 6:09 pm

Sally, maybe Georgie was just so excited about someone asking his opinion on a major issue, he couldn’t hold back the smile?

Then again, that obnoxious smirk could have meant, “Oh goodie, Obama could screw up like I did, then I won’t look so bad! Haw-haw!”

» Posted By AdLib On August 30, 2013 @ 5:36 pm

Sally, you absolutely didn’t, you just corrected the record, appreciate that. Just venting at Bush being such a coward and a liar, I’ll take every opportunity that comes my way!

» Posted By AdLib On August 30, 2013 @ 5:05 pm

BTW, in mid July, George was in Africa. It’s on Bush’s Facebook page. Um…that seems to be a bit farther away from his dad than DC.

» Posted By AdLib On August 30, 2013 @ 3:17 pm

George Bush is a proven liar, so my motto when it comes to him is consider the source.

He could have flown out to DC, spoke and flew back if his BS about “needing” to stay close to his father was true. It wasn’t, ALL Republicans came up with lies to avoid attending…not one Republican attended and the main Repubs all lied about the necessities forcing them to miss it.

And George isn’t spending every single day of his life at his dad’s house anyway, that’s just ridiculous but no surprise Bush would be such a coward to hide behind his ailing father.

But thanks for watching my back, I absolutely wouldn’t want to have anything in common with Bill O’Reilly!

» Posted By AdLib On August 30, 2013 @ 3:14 pm

And ain’t in interesting how George Bush was unable to attend the March on Washington celebration because of his heart stint procedure weeks ago but two days later is on the golf course?

What a lying POS.

So of course, his opinion on Syria should be discarded like a moldy orange.

» Posted By AdLib On August 30, 2013 @ 2:47 pm

Kalima, thanks for posting the scoop! I posted the full text of the assessment thanks to your heads up!

» Posted By AdLib On August 30, 2013 @ 2:44 pm

Nirek, that is inescapable logic, if a mass killing of people with chemical weapons should be against international law, why isn’t doing the same using weapons other than chemical ones?

The bottom line of course is that there is no difference. I think it’s all about having a globally agreed-upon red line, arbitrary as it is, that when killing rises up to using chemical weapons, that’s where the line can be drawn.

What it should be is more basic, once any mass killing of one’s own innocent citizens is committed, that should be crossing the line.

» Posted By AdLib On August 30, 2013 @ 10:00 am

Kalima, it is difficult for Pres. Obama to focus on what he wants to do with the ME and Republicans derailing him constantly. As the candidate who ran in opposition to unnecessary wars in the ME, this is the last thing he would want his presidency tied down by.

» Posted By AdLib On August 30, 2013 @ 9:55 am

It is hard to see what the US can do on its own to drastically change the situation in Syria…other than becoming involved in a long term bombing campaign but that comes with many ramifications as well.

Such actions need the support of the nation and the world and though bombing is one option, I would hope the world could come together with an alternative action to punish and weaken Assad that’s smarter than just using brute force.

» Posted By AdLib On August 30, 2013 @ 9:53 am

Very interesting, Sally. Determining if they were rockets or bombs could make a huge difference. Just heard the UN inspectors will be done and out by tomorrow so that report will be out by next week. A must read indeed!

» Posted By AdLib On August 29, 2013 @ 10:22 pm

jjgravitas, I don’t think that deep down, Obama wants us to be militarily involved in Syria either but the use of weapons of mass destruction has made him feel we have to.

I do believe in the cliche, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Because the US has the greatest military power on the planet, I think there is a responsibility that comes with that to try and stop horrific things from happening when we can. But that has to be balanced with taking action that creates more horrific things and greater violence and death. Not to mention, destabilizing part of the world or most of it.

Such decisions are usually very complicated and knock down dominoes that weren’t even seen originally.

Wars rarely make for less deaths and a better world but in some cases. they have.

So if we are to get engaged in military actions that are not necessary for our security, we should thoroughly explore that proposition, debate it fully, get all the info possible and have our entire federal government, Congress and the President, agree that this is the thing to do.

I think the UK’s vote to prevent their coming on board with a military attack on Syria will have a big impact on Obama slowing this all down and getting national and international support IF he can. And if he can’t, I’d expect some covert actions which may be the only way to accomplish a weakening of Assad without having a US thumbprint on it and without drawing our nation into another war.

» Posted By AdLib On August 29, 2013 @ 9:48 pm

Kes, for defense firms, they always go in the black when there are threats to make the world run red.

» Posted By AdLib On August 29, 2013 @ 9:29 pm

KT, my opinion (FWIW) is that The War Powers Act absolutely applies in this case because the U.S. is not imminently threatened now nor would any action by the US be retaliatory for having been attacked itself.

As painful as it is to say with Obama in the WH, this would be a military action of choice, we could do it or not do it and if we didn’t, we would not suffer any immediate danger because of that.

However, not responding would definitely embolden Assad, Iran, Russia and Al Qaeda because the U.S. would (wrongly) be seen as weak and toothless. So I do think there is a long term danger to doing nothing but that isn’t allowed under the WPA as a justification for a President to unilaterally launch military attacks.

The Syrian rebels include Al Qaeda, extremist Muslims, a variety of types who, if not engaged in this war might be working with those who want to launch terrorist attacks on the US. There are individual rebels who are not terrorists but from what I understand, there is no formal grouping of them nor a leader. So if we helped them, would we just be helping a new Bin Laden be born?

It is a terrible situation where there are bad guys on both sides and innocent civilians caught in the middle. If either side prevailed, it would be terrible thus Obama’s declaration that he wouldn’t seek regime change if he launched an attack.

I don’t have all the info Obama does on this but even if I did, I don’t know that I could be confident about making a decision.

» Posted By AdLib On August 29, 2013 @ 9:24 pm

Sally, I have a feeling that the documentation they provide could forensically help identify if the Assad military really is behind it. The rockets that delivered it (if that’s how it was delivered), the type of chemical and the availability or unavailability of it. Maybe it won’t provide conclusive evidence but it could help to strengthen or weaken suspicions as to who did this.

» Posted By AdLib On August 29, 2013 @ 9:13 pm

Very well said, Kes! I think there are parallels with Obama Presidency and Lincolns and FDR’s. A nation divided North and South with racism deep at the heart of the division, a Great Recession, international wars, on and on.

Obama was handed a nightmare on the day he took office and it’s been one major crisis after another thanks in part to the Republicans. On top of everything else, there was the BP oil spill, killer hurricanes wiping out smaller cities such as Joplin and major cities such as NYC, the Arab Spring revolutions including the Libya conflict, the BP oil spill poisoning the Gulf, Al Qaeda planning and executing terror attacks, mass shootings in movie theaters and elementary schools, legalized murder of black teens, modern day Jim Crow legislation in Southern states to oppress black and Latino people and rob them of the right to run for office and vote, corporations and the wealthy given the financial keys to our democracy, Occupy Wall Street protests in major cities…on and on and on.

What other President other than FDR and Lincoln had to preside over such non-stop madness?

And what President other than those two brought the country through all of it successfully?

President Obama has for the most part been a fireman who has rescued the American people and knocked down fires.

Bush and his cronies were arsonists who set all those fires.

The path for Obama to unilaterally and without support of our closest allies to launch a military strike on Syria is very perilous. Going it alone is too much of a gamble, one that could endanger far too much including his entire second term and any good he could do for this country during it. And Constitutionally, he should know as a scholar that it’s not the legal thing to do.

Get the UN report, bring Congress and our allies together and backing him and if that doesn’t all come together, he should not take action.

This kind of situation is why you can watch Presidents aging their job. This is an intense decision which could have enormous consequences. He may think he knows what the right thing is to do but without the country behind him, even if it was to turn out to be the right thing to do, the damage to our institution of government and trust in it could be massively damaged.

» Posted By AdLib On August 29, 2013 @ 9:07 pm

So Assad’s people just pointing a finger at the rebels and saying, “We didn’t do it, they did it!” is supposed to be “proof”? Right…

» Posted By AdLib On August 29, 2013 @ 4:18 pm

Kalima, I think they said it will take the UN a week to issue a report once the mission is complete. We certainly can wait that long and I hope that letting cool heads prevail would yield a 21st century solution to this horrible situation.

» Posted By AdLib On August 29, 2013 @ 4:04 pm

Kalima, the MO of villains like Assad is to always blame the crime on the victims first. Zimmerman did it, the Repubs do it all the time, the bad guys are bad guys so they act like it and commit the evil act of blaming their victims after they commit terrible acts.

» Posted By AdLib On August 29, 2013 @ 4:00 pm

Sally, no question that the US has been the greatest perpetrator in the use weapons of mass destruction, including dropping atomic bombs on Japan and aiding Saddam in using poison gas on Iran during their war.

So no, we don’t come from a history of principle on this but most Americans expect their country to stand on the right side of the issue and against mass murder. At the same time, most Americans are exhausted from war and while they are appalled by the mass murder in Syria, they don’t want to become embroiled in another ME war.

The problem with relying on the UN is that having the Russians and Chinese on the Security Council means nothing will ever be allowed to interfere with mass murder by their ally, Assad. The UN is impotent when it comes to Syria so we can’t look to them to do much more than investigate things. So, let them complete that but then, if their report confirms Cemical weapons and Assad as likely the one who used them, the civilized nations around the world need to get together and figure out how to respond to this.

» Posted By AdLib On August 29, 2013 @ 3:56 pm

Kalima, this is actually a very good thing for Obama because it now gives a third party reason for slowing things down. He can use this to deflect criticisms that he is neglecting his “crossing a red line” threat by saying, “I’m ready to do this but I need my allies with me to make it work.”

As I mentioned in my post, Obama needs to be the anti-Bush on this, not rushing to military action but waiting to get all the facts first. No one could reasonably fault him for doing so (except the Repubs who would fault him for anything he does).

Looking forward to Obama’s reaction to this.

» Posted By AdLib On August 29, 2013 @ 3:38 pm

Right with you on that. While I expect all subsequent evidence to further support Assad being the mass murderer via chemical weapons, we do need to slow things down and make sure of what really happened.

It’s one thing to strongly believe something, it’s another to be certain enough to be fully justified in bombing another country.

» Posted By AdLib On August 29, 2013 @ 3:30 pm

Sue, I have gotten lots of requests to offer my donations to Obama so I consider my self as a paying advisor.

I don’t think there’s much doubt that if we hadn’t entered the WWII after Pearl Harbor and had stayed on the sidelines, millions more Jews would have been murdered and the Allies would have lost to Hitler. So, sometimes a moral imperative to stop mass murdering tyrants is also a necessary act to protect out future.

Agreed, I see corporations no differently than other tyrants who knowingly cause or allow the mass deaths of people. Why shouldn’t Assad and every tyrant just incorporate themselves then if ever deposed, the worst that would happen is their corporation would be sued for crimes against humanity and they could settle for an undisclosed amount without admitting guilt?

» Posted By AdLib On August 29, 2013 @ 3:26 pm

Kalima, wow! That’s huge news and pretty remarkable! It should have a big impact on Obama’s push for an attack. Surely he doesn’t want to go on a mission with a “Coalition of the Willing” like another President did.

Action needs to be taken but neither Brits nor Americans seem to want it to be military.

» Posted By AdLib On August 29, 2013 @ 3:09 pm

Murph, considering the initial sources, I am skeptical of such a claim. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible but considering the Assad regime has used chemical weapons previously, I would start from a position of assuming that Assad was likely the perp but want to get as much evidence as possible to be sure.

The claims were that there were rockets that hit and delivered the gas. I’ve heard it discussed that the rebels don’t have the technology to do that. Also, would they really kill up to 1,000 of their own people, including children? And why did Assad bomb that same area with rockets for days after while refusing UN inspectors the ability to go there and confirm their innocence? Based on all that circumstantial evidence, I find it highly unlikely that the rebels are behind this but I remain open to evidence that proves otherwise.

» Posted By AdLib On August 29, 2013 @ 3:04 pm

Murph, we’ve ridiculed the ignorant Baggers who have been recently clamoring to impeach Obama, would this not give them real ammunition to fully pursue it?

Obama seems to be looking high and low for an international law that allows him to take action unilaterally but it’s would still conflict with our Constitution. Even though his intentions may be the best and even though an attack might turn out to be the best thing to have done, we don’t need another President ignoring The Cnstitution and separation of powers.

Like the Obama of the past, I do not see how The Constitution allows the President to engage the military in an attack, when there is no imminent threat to the U.S., without Congress agreeing to it. We can’t further enhance an Imperial Presidency, it almost destroyed our nation when Bush had that power. Whether Obama uses it well or not is beside the point, there will be a Repub President one day in the future and we don’t want another war mongering Admin to have that power.

» Posted By AdLib On August 29, 2013 @ 2:24 pm