Syria

[Brian Baldwin]

That was on a whole as unproductive a press conference as I've seen. Just bluster and promises to continue doing nothing until they may do something.

[American Patriot]

So Kerry stood there for about 18 minutes blowing a lot of CO2 into the air and didn't say anything we didn't already know then.

[American Patriot]

France just backed the US on military action.

[Brian Baldwin]

France backed the US as far as the US doing something. That's their M.O. lol

[American Patriot]

30 August 2013 Last updated at 12:57 ET France's Hollande backs US on Syria action


Cannot play media. You do not have the correct version of the flash player. Download the correct version





Jeremy Bowen reports from Damascus: ''You could sense the tension in the face of what feels here like an impending attack''



France is still ready to take action in Syria alongside the US, despite UK MPs blocking British involvement, President Francois Hollande has said.
He told Le Monde newspaper a strike within days could not be ruled out.


The US says it will continue to seek a coalition, and President Barack Obama is meeting his national security team.


The UN is investigating claims that the Syrian forces of President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons. Mr Assad denies the claims, blaming rebels.


UN chemical weapons inspectors visited a hospital in a government-controlled area of Damascus on Friday.
Continue reading the main story At the scene

Jeremy Bowen BBC Middle East editor, Damascus



The weapons inspectors this morning seemed to be in two or three minds about what was going on.


Twice they left the garage of the hotel where they and foreign correspondents are staying, looking as if they were ready to head out, and twice they went back in. Perhaps they had a plan to visit some of the suburbs held by rebels that they had been going into to take samples, but there's been a lot of shelling going on in that direction today.
Now they are here at the regime's military hospital. There have been claims from the regime itself that they had soldiers wounded by chemical weapons, and perhaps those are the people they've come to see.

• UN inspectors visit hospital

The UN says the whole team will leave Syria on Saturday. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says the inspectors will then brief him on their preliminary findings.

Syrian officials say they will reject any "incomplete report" from the UN before the results of laboratory tests are known.


A UN spokesman later said the experts would try to "expedite" the report, but said no conclusions would be drawn until the full tests had been completed.
'France is ready'

Mr Ban met the five permanent members of the Security Council in New York earlier.


They have held talks twice already this week, but after the last meeting on Thursday, diplomats said they were "far apart".


Mr Ban was expected to give the US, UK, France, Russia and China more information about the timetable for the findings of the weapons inspectors.


Mr Hollande said the UK vote, in which parliament rejected a government motion supporting the principle of military action, made no difference to France's position.


"Each country is sovereign to participate or not in an operation. That is valid for Britain as it is for France," he said.


He said that if the UN Security Council was unable to act, a coalition would form including the Arab League and European countries.


"But there are few countries which can have the capacity of enforcing any sanction through the appropriate measures," he said.


"France will be part of it. France is ready."

He ruled out strikes while the UN inspectors were in Syria. However he did not rule out the possibility that military action could be taken before next Wednesday, when the French parliament is due to debate the issue.

Neither France nor the US need parliamentary approval for action, and Secretary of State John Kerry said the US could not be held to the foreign policy of others.

“Start Quote

The Obama administration believes that it is necessary to punish and deter Assad - the only question is whether Europe, represented by France, will be with them”

Gavin Hewitt Europe editor

• Read more from Gavin

The UK vote was welcomed in Russia, Syria's main international ally.


Moscow said it reflected a growing public understanding of the dangers of an attack.


And the BBC's Jeremy Bowen in Damascus says Syrian MPs are delighted with the UK vote.


He says they believe a letter they sent to the UK parliament inviting their British counterparts to inspect the evidence of chemical attacks had helped sway the vote against military action.


China, which has vetoed previous UN Security Council resolutions against Syria, reiterated on Friday that no action should be taken until the UN inspectors have reported on their findings.


And Germany said of military action that "such participation has not been sought nor is it being considered".








The BBC witnesses the aftermath of a bomb attack on school in northern Syria

'Beyond doubt'

Officials in the US and UK had been insistent throughout the week that the Assad regime had carried out a poison-gas attack in eastern Damascus on 21 August in which hundreds were killed.


Models for possible intervention

• Iraq 1991: US-led global military coalition; explicit mandate from UN Security Council to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait
• Balkans 1990s: US arms supplied to anti-Serb resistance in defiance of UN-mandated embargo; later US-led air campaign against Serb paramilitaries
• Somalia 1992-93: UN authorised international force for humanitarian reasons; US military involvement culminated in disaster and pullout
• Libya 2011: France and UK sought UN authorisation for humanitarian operation; air offensive continued until fall of Gaddafi

• After the missiles
• Shadow of Iraq
• Reaction to UK vote
• Q&A: Military options

However British Prime Minister David Cameron told parliament on Thursday he could not be 100% sure.


In the US, government officials briefed a Congressional committee on the case for launching action against Mr Assad's forces.


Eliot Engel, the top Democratic member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told reporters after the briefing that officials had said it was "beyond a doubt that chemical weapons were used, and used intentionally by the Assad regime".


Mr Engel said officials had cited evidence including "intercepted communications from high-level Syrian officials".


Reports in the US media this week described Syrian officials suggesting in phone conversations that the chemical weapons attack had been more devastating than was intended.


A Syrian general who defected and fled to Turkey last year told the BBC in Istanbul that the current head of the regime's chemical weapons programme had been killed.
Gen Adnan Sillu, who said he had once been head of the programme, claimed that his successor, Gen Mohamed Aslan, was responsible for last week's attack in Damascus.
Gen Sillu said Gen Aslan had been killed as part of the regime's attempt to destroy evidence of the attack.


His claim could not be independently verified.


More than 100,000 people are estimated to have died since the conflict erupted in Syria in March 2011, and the conflict has produced at least 1.7 million refugees.



Forces which could be used against Syria:


• Four US destroyers - USS Gravely, USS Ramage, USS Barry and USS Mahan - are in the eastern Mediterranean, equipped with cruise missiles. The missiles can also be fired from submarines, but the US Navy does not reveal their locations

• Airbases at Incirlik and Izmir in Turkey, and in Jordan, could be used to carry out strikes
• Two aircraft carriers - USS Nimitz and USS Harry S Truman are in the wider region
• French aircraft carrierCharles de Gaulle is currently in Toulon in the western Mediterranean
• French Raffale and Mirage aircraft can also operate from Al-Dhahra airbase in the UAE

[Brian Baldwin]

Obama doesn't have the balls to call the Russian's bluff. JFK he's not.

[American Patriot]

I agree. He is not JFK.

But I think the man is just crazy enough to do something to cause more problems.

[American Patriot]

Can Obama Bomb Syria? The Legality of a Unilateral U.S. Strike

August 30, 2013 by Arthur Weinreb 0 Comments




Could President Obama legally order bombing of Syria for the use of chemical weapons? Image courtesy of the U.S. Navy

The situation between the West and Syria is in a state of flux. At the time of this writing, the United Kingdom has voted not to begin a war, however limited, against Syria.
The United States has not sought a United Nations resolution to authorize any action against the Middle East country and so if the U.S. proceeds, it will be by unilateral action, with or without a coalition of the willing that now appears to be just France.
Unlike U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, Obama has not sought approval from the legislative branch of his government. This raises the question of whether action taken against Syria at this time is constitutional and legal without the authorization of Congress.

Obama’s ‘Red Line’ on Syria

A little over a year ago, the president stated any use of chemical weapons by the government in Syria’s civil war would constitute the crossing of a “red line,” opening up the country to a military response by the U.S. and possibly other Western countries.
Obama said, “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. This would change my calculus. That would change my equation…We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans.”
On August 21, 2013, intelligence showed hundreds of Syrians were killed in a chemical weapons attack. While Assad may have launched the attack, there is no conclusive evidence this is so. While there is little doubt innocent civilians died as a result of poison gas, a weapon of mass destruction, the possibility is open that the weapons were used by rebel forces or by persons in the Syrian government but without the authorization of Assad.
After some hemming and hawing, the president announced that some form of action will be taken against the Assad regime, most likely the limited firing of cruise missiles into the country.
Britain: No, Germany: No, France: Yes

It appears at this time, a coalition of the willing will be formed with at least France ready to partake in some action against Syria. British Prime Minister David Cameron was an eager participant in an action Obama described as “firing a shot across the bow.” But before proceeding, Cameron recalled the House of Commons back from their summer vacation to vote upon the issue.
On August 29, 2013, the British House of Commons voted 285-272 against the use of force, if necessary, against Syria. The 13 vote majority was achieved after several MPs from Cameron’s Conservative Party voted with the opposition against the motion.
A disappointed Cameron, who had already sent fighter jets to the area, said he would accept the will of Parliament, and Britain will not join the United States in any proposed military action.
Germany had already advised the country will not participate in any action against Assad unless it had been first sanctioned by the United Nations. That leaves only France.
After the vote in the U.K., French president Francois Hollande said his country is still willing to become involved and join the United States. Hollande believes a military operation will begin by next Wednesday, September 4.
Obama Bypasses United Nations

Unlike George W. Bush, Obama did not seek authorization from the UN Security Council to take action against Syria. Other than the excuse that his UN Ambassador, Samantha Power, seems to be MIA, going to the Security Council would have been futile. Both Russia and China have the power to veto Security Council decisions, and it is clear they would have vetoed any attempted action against Syria.
This leaves the U.S. to go it alone or with the support of France. So the following questions are raised. When is it legal under international law to proceed without Security Council approval, and when can the president take military action without the approval of Congress?

Can Obama Bomb Syria? The Legality of a Unilateral U.S. Strike

August 30, 2013 by Arthur Weinreb 0 Comments




Is Syrian President, Bashar Al-Assad’s alleged chemical attacks on Syrian citizens a risk to the United States, requiring a self-defense bombing? Image by Fabio Rodrigues Pozzebom / ABr

The Right to Self-Defense Under International Law

Under the United Nations Charter, Member countries must obtain Security Council authorization before commencing a military attack against another country. Article 51 provides an exception to the general rule. A country or a group of countries can take military action without the UN’s approval to defend against an armed attack on a country or countries. Countries have an inherent right to defend themselves and do not have to give up this right in order to seek authorization from the Security Council.


If such is the case, Members must advise the Security Council of what they have done or are doing in order to comply with the UN Charter.
It also can be argued, customary international law is still in effect and countries have rights under that law even though these actions are not specifically set out in the UN Charter. Under customary international law, countries can take action in “anticipatory self defense.” If an attack against a country is imminent, that country can defend itself from that attack. They need not wait until their territory is attacked before taking action.

Is Syria a Threat to the U.S.?

The problem with the situation in Syria is that Syria does not appear to be an imminent threat to the United States, any more that it has been during the last few years. Obama seems to want to send a message to Assad that while it is okay to kill innocent civilians with rockets, mortars and bullets, once the Syrian president used chemical weapons, if in fact “he” used them, he should be punished for it. There is no provision in international law to use force against another country to teach a leader a lesson. The requirement of self defense in the justification for the use of force seems totally absent.
Obama’s Use of Force without Congressional Authorization

Unlike what just took place in the United Kingdom, Obama has made no attempt to recall Congress and ask for a resolution authorizing the actions he is contemplating against Syria. This is despite receiving a letter from over 100 members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, urging him to seek Congressional approval prior to any Syrian strike.


Under the Constitution, both the executive and legislative branches have authority over acts of war. Under Article II, Section 2, the president, as commander in chief, has the authority to deploy troops while Article I, Section 8 grants the power to declare war to Congress.


The War Powers Act was passed in 1973 after Congress overrode President Nixon’s veto. The legislation was passed after Congress and the American people thought the president had too much power in conducting the war in Vietnam.


The War Powers Act requires the president to “consult” with Congress after troops are deployed and troops can only be deployed for a period of up to 60 days without an authorization from Congress.


The War Powers Act envisages real wars, not the lobbing of cruise missiles into a country for a few days to punish that country’s leader for crossing some red line the president decided to draw. If the U.S. bombs Syria, the action may take only a few days. If this is in fact the case, the War Powers Act only states Obama is required to tell Congress what he is doing and why. Obama has already briefed Congress and will undoubtedly advise of more details, either in a brief to Congress or on a television show.
Commander in Chief’s Authority

As in customary international law, the president has the authority as commander in chief to repel an attack or an imminent threat from another country without first going to Congress. However, President Obama has made it clear that he simply wants to punish Assad for using chemical weapons.


The United States has not been attacked by Syria, nor is Syria an imminent threat. Although Syria denies having chemical weapons, reports of WMD in Syria have spread for years. The fact that citizens of Syria were hit with chemical weapons in August 2013 does not make their possession any more of an imminent threat to the United States than they were before they were used.
U.S. Bombing Syria: Breach of International Law

Unless an imminent threat can be shown, an attack on Syria would be a clear breach of international law. And as far as dispensing with Congressional approval, the War Powers Act was simply not designed to cover situations such as a two or three day military strike to make a point. American legislation contemplated real wars in which troops would have to be withdrawn after 60 days unless the action was approved by Congress.


Resources:
United Nations. Charter of the United Nations. (2013). Accessed August 30, 2013.
American International Law Review. Anticipatory Self-Defence Under International Law [PDF]. (2003). Accessed August 30, 2013.
Library of Congress. War Powers. (2013). Accessed August 30, 2013.
Washington Post. Obama issues Syria a ‘red line’ warning on chemical weapons. (2012). Accessed August 30, 2013.
CNN. Official: U.S. may take unilateral action against Syria. (2013). Accessed August 30, 2013.
U.K. Telegraph. Syria crisis: No to war, blow to Cameron. (2013). Accessed August 30, 2013.
U.K. Telegraph. Francois Hollande: France is ready to act, despite British vote. (2013). Accessed August 30, 2013.
ABC News. Growing Bipartisan Coalition Urges Obama to Seek Congressional Authorization for Syria Strike. (2013). Accessed August 30, 2013.

[American Patriot]

As Ralph Peters JUST stated.....

I do not see a threat to the United States that gives us the right to unilateral action.

In truth, I can't think of a good reason to do anything. Why are we;

1) telegraphing all this to the rest of the world?
2) doing this unilaterally?
3) Where is the threat to the USA?
4) Why are we really doing this?

Something else is driving Obama.

[American Patriot]

Copy of the released report on this link:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...obama/2742369/

White House releases report detailing Syria chemical attack

Aamer Madhani, USA TODAY 1:29 p.m. EDT August 30, 2013

(Photo: Chip Somodevilla Getty Images)

SHARECONNECT 45 TWEETCOMMENTEMAILMORE

WASHINGTON--Secretary of State John Kerry said Friday that the U.S. has evidence the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own people, as the White House released a four-page report summarizing their case against the Bashar Assad regime.
Kerry said the administration is releasing an intelligence report today laying out their evidence. Proving this allegation is considered a threshold that the U.S. would use to justify a potential military strike on that country.
"I'm not asking you to take my word for it," Kerry said. "Read for yourselves the verdict reached by our intelligence community" that the government of Syria was responsible for the attack.
The intelligence community believes with "high confidence" that Assad government used chemical weapons in Damascus suburbs based on human sources as well as intercepts of conversations by senior Syrian officials, according to the report and Kerry.
With the release of the unclassified intelligence report and a telephone briefing for lawmakers on Thursday evening, the White House looked to bolster the case for taking action against Assad even as objections to a strike continue to mount in the U.S. and with the nation's closest ally, Britain, to taking military action.
Obama was also given a bolt of international backing on Friday, when President François Hollande of France on Friday announced his support for international military action against the Syrian government.
On Thursday, the British parliament voted to reject taking military action in Syria, even the government published an intelligence document that detailed how it concluded the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attacks on the outskirts of Damascus last week.
Obama still has not on announced whether he will take action for the Aug. 21 attack, which the U.S. government says killed 1,429, including more than 400 children.
"The primary question is no longer what do we know," Kerry said. "It is what are we in the world going to do about it?"

[American Patriot]

President set to speak in 20 minutes.

Pentagon states that Syria has moved it's "most dangerous weapons out of reach".

Maybe the President should shut his MOUTH for awhile and stop telegraphing things?

[BRVoice]

Rami al-Lolah‏@RamiAlLolah7m
#BreakingNews #Kuwait ambassador in #Beirut urges Kuwaitis to leave #Lebanon immediately! #Hezbollah


Rami al-Lolah‏@RamiAlLolah12m
#BreakingNews #Israel Channel 2: #US will strike #Assad; There is no doubt about that! #Syria


President Obama to briefly comment on Syria during appearance with presidents from Baltic region - @NBCNews
6 mins ago by editor

[BRVoice]

Charlie Kaye ‏@CharlieKayeCBS 8m
. @ToulaVlahouCBS in Athens: US asks NATO ally Greece for use of military bases in Crete and Kalamata. Not clear if connected to Syria.

RT @markknoller: White House has declined TV networks request for live coverage of Pres. Obama's remarks on Syria at 230pm.

RT ‏@markknoller: I'm referring to remarks Pres Obama is to make shortly at start of his meeting with Baltic Leaders. No live TV coverage. Tape playback.

[American Patriot]

I don't see them hitting Assad directly. They don't know where he is... probably. LOL

The can of worms being opened here is very, very large. The worms are the size of the Sand Worms of Dune.

We're backing a bunch of terrorists in Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood, against a man who, while he was not a particularly GOOD guy, he was not someone who was truly "bad". Though he too was backing terrorists, backing Iran, backing Saddam... etc.

So really, where is the mission? What's the goal? Why ARE we doing this?

Can anyone come up with a legitimate, logical, somewhat reasonable explanation of what the hell is actually going on here????

Cuz, I sure can't.

[American Patriot]

Fox just reported that president will speak privately at a photo op... huh?

Wow.

Just fucking WOW.

[American Patriot]

Does ANYONE here think hitting Syria is a good idea? Maybe I've got this all wrong or something.

I mean, Syria probably has all of Sadam's old WMD. I can see this being a reason for hitting them NOW because they used the weapons etc.

But, Israel is over there I suppose pretending to be a sitting duck.

I'm wondering, perhaps this is all part of a bigger plan - not that I can see the President being the mover and shaker here - but what if this is a way to get some shit started to give Israel a green light to hit Iran?

It goes like this.

1) Assad is alleged to attack innocents with chemical weapons

2) The UN confirms CW used, but not who....

3) The US decides to 'teach them a lesson"....

4) We blow up and break shit over in Syria.....

5) Iran decides to hit Israel....

6) Syria decides to hit Israel....

7) they blow up and break shit in Israel.....

8) Israel jumps up and down, they blow the shit out of Iran's nuke program.

9) Israel jumps up and down, they blow up Damascus, and most of Syria's war machine.

9) Hezbollah gets pissed, jumps up and down, shoots some Israelis

10) Israel kills all of the terrorists.


Unintended Consequences include:

1) Russia gets pissed... shoots us.

2) China gets pissed... shoots us.

3) North Korea get pissed... then pisses on themselves.

4) Terrorists in American blow things up and break shit....

5) Cops get killed, kill terrorists....

6) Civilians get killed, civilians get pissed, kill terrorists, non-terrorists, blacks, whites, politicians, judges, congresspeople, random people and dogs.....

7) World War III starts (or perhaps it's world war 4 by this time, I'm no longer certain).

8) The Russians, getting beat, nuke us.

9) We get nuked, we nuke back....

10) China nukes us, we nuke back....

11) Lots of people die.


In the year 2036 John Titor jumps in his time machine pick up truck and turns on the double singularities, triggering a massive Tippler Cylinder Worm hole, drives "back to the past" to collect a small IBM computer to take to the future to try to stop everything from happening... or something.

[American Patriot]

Tape being played of the President.

He is justifying this to us and himself.

[American Patriot]

He has NOT made a "final decision".... blah blah....

[BRVoice]

My thoughts about all this:

[Ryan Ruck]

Does ANYONE here think hitting Syria is a good idea? Maybe I've got this all wrong or something.

The only valid reason I've seen for supporting a strike was from a rather smart guy in the military who posted on ARFCOM that striking Assad would help prolong the conflict of bad guys killing bad guys since Assad has been winning.

From my perspective, I just don't know that the risk outweighs the reward.