Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

I don't think it's about "we", edgar.

I don't know, you would have to ask Obama about his Red Line that they seemed to have crossed.

I'm torn. On the one side I really don't think the US should get involved, but using chemical weapons on your own population is really abhorrent. I think the world has to come to some sort of consensus and act together. Don't know if that can happen though.

I'm on the side of NO.
I'm usually against our big feet in the world.

Except, except, I'm re what's happening.
Still, our military action, even with others, seems to me to not be the way to solve anything in Syria..

Then what, in your opinion, is the solution, osso?

Is napalm a chemical weapon? . . . Is white phosphorus a chemical weapon?'

Because if they are and I'm pretty sure they are.... there's a bit of pot kettle black going on here.

Good night now.

No disagreement with you there, euro. But is the analogy relevant? Just because the US violated some basic precepts of humanitarianism in Southeast Asia, is that a reason for allowing Assad to get away with it also?

Citing declassified CIA documents and interviews with former officials, the magazine reviewed the US record as Washington weighs military action against Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons near Damascus last week.

The magazine said the US knew in 1983 that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein would not hesitate to resort to shelling Iranian forces with sarin or mustard gas.

"As Iraqi attacks continue and intensify the chances increase that Iranian forces will acquire a shell containing mustard agent with Iraqi markings," a top secret CIA report said in November 1983.

"Tehran would take such evidence to the UN and charge US complicity in violating international law," the agency warned.

In late 1987, US satellite imagery showed that Iran was concentrating a large force east of the southern Iraqi port city of Basra in preparation for a spring offensive.

The images also showed that the Iranians had identified a strategic weakness in the Iraqi defenses.


The report, titled "At the Gates of Basra," was shown to president Ronald Regan, who wrote a note in the margins that said, "An Iranian victory is unacceptable," according to Foreign Policy.

The United States decided to inform Baghdad of its findings and help the Iraqis with intelligence on Iranian logistics centers and anti-aircraft defenses.

Saddam's forces smashed the Iranian buildup before it could get off the ground, launching a vast offensive in April 1988, backed by bombardments with chemical weapons, on the Fao Peninsula.

Chemical agents were used four times, each time killing between hundreds and thousands of Iranian troops, according to the CIA.

"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," said retired Air Force colonel Rick Francona, a military attache in Baghdad during the 1988 attacks.

During the same period, in March 1988, Saddam used chemical agents in an attack of the Kurdish village of Hallabja, killing 5,000 people, also with total impunity.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/us-gave-iraq-intel-ignored-chemical-attacks_n_3817868.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Of course, as we all know, two wrongs don't make a right. Time to step back in my opinion. We have to stop the international weapons trade from feeding the war machines of other nations, for one thing. edgar

I have often wondered why Syria has not been a topic on A2K.

Maybe we are a bit scared of the subject as Mr Kerry's speech suggested.

If caveats were raindrops it's pissing down.

Totally agree with your last paragraph in the above post, edgar.

The U.S. used white phosphorus in Iraq, definitely in Fallujah.
The I.D.F have admitted to using it in 2009, though say they have now removed it from their arsenal, But still.

You must have heard that sexy, macho phrase Shake 'n' Bake used during the war in Iraq.
That's white phosphorus doing its thing.

It's late here, night now.
Agree with Ed too.

I didn't edit since I went out as it's cooling down to do some more yard work.

So, I meant to say that I'm really torn on that re what is happening.

And I added in my own head but didn't type, that I don't know a good answer. I just don't think it's us or a coalition of us going in and selectively bombing/droning et al.

We cant do anything in Syria.
Remember, we need to approval of the UN before we can act, AND we need to have been attacked.
Since the full UN wont approve action, and since we weren't attacked, what is the reason to think we can react.

Also, since the UN inspectors are in Syria, do we let them do their jobs first?
And what if they don't find anything?

Well, you're right, of course, as far as the legality of it goes. So,are we just rattling sabers here?

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration moved closer to military action against Syria on Monday as Secretary of State John Kerry said the government of Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against its own people and cynically tried to cover it up.

The White House started reaching out to congressional leaders Monday, including House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Brendan Buck, a Boehner spokesman. "The speaker made clear that before any action is taken, there must be meaningful consultation with members of Congress, as well as clearly defined objectives and a broader strategy to achieve stability," Buck said.

President Obama believes there must be "accountability" for those who used the weapons, Kerry said, calling the video from the attacks "gut wrenching."

"The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders, by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity," Kerry said. He said he watched the "gut wrenching" videos showing victims of the attack Aug. 21.

"As a father, I can't get the image out of my head of a man who held up his dead child, wailing while chaos swirled around him," Kerry said.

KERRY: Syria's use of chemical weapons 'undeniable'

In Syria, members of a United Nations inspection team traveled through government- and rebel-held territory Monday to look for signs of chemical weapons use. One of the team's vehicles was attacked by snipers.

The administration, White House spokesman Jay Carney said, has not decided on military action, although the Pentagon has presented a variety of military options to the president, including establishing a no-fly zone to training and advising the opposition. The most likely option, according to military experts, members of Congress and others, is using cruise missiles to strike Syrian targets.


Cruise missiles can be fired by surface ships or submarines and are the most likely response, said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Four U.S. Navy destroyers, the USS Barry, Gravely, Mahan and Ramage are positioned in the eastern Mediterranean, according to a Defense Department official who was not authorized to discuss their whereabouts publicly.

Warplanes could fire Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff missiles, weapons with warheads that could be released outside the range of Syria's air defenses. These cruise missiles can be fired from hundreds of miles away.

Firing cruise missiles avoids exposing pilots to Syria's air defense system, which is large though mostly outdated. Breaching the air defenses would probably involve numerous aircraft and would entail significant risks to pilots.

As a practical matter, Obama's options are more limited. The White House is wary of getting sucked into a wider war in Syria and considers most rebel groups as unreliable partners.

The attack would have to inflict damage severe enough to prevent the Syrians from using chemical weapons again, Reed said.

David Deptula, a retired Air Force three-star general who led the service's intelligence and surveillance operations, declined to speculate on what option Obama would choose, but he said any attack would be designed to respond to the chemical allegations and not to choose a side in a civil war that is more than 2 years old and has claimed more than 100,00 lives.

From USA Today

No, just drawing red lines in the sand.

Bork Obunga hasn't.

I see that power is not interested in who did the gassing, the UN team on the ground is forbidden from investgating. this tells me that power wants to attack Assad and wants to make sure thst no inconvenient truth gets in the way.

Whatever - I strongly don't want this to happen.