BS: chemical weapons in Syria

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Sep 13 - 01:07 AM

Thank you, Guest.    We will give your contributions all the respect they deserve, considering the wonderful courage you have shown in voicing them.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 10:27 PM

Obama really wants a war. Read the news.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 09:13 PM

"Israel wants status quo in this conflict but leans toward Assad. What they want to do is bomb Iran"

This is pure falsehood, what they actually want to do is prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapon capability which, IMO, is perfectly legitimate seeing as how that state has declared as that's goal is to see Israel wiped off the map. Yeah, yeah I know that was only a figure of speech....nudge, nudge, wink wink.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 06:16 PM

Just like to add, as we see "Iraq part2" start to unfold, what has happened to all the Obama supporters.....all the guys who mocked Little Hawk, Sanity, Songwronger, stringsinger and others, for suggesting that Mr Obama serves the same masters as Mr Bush.

Seriously wont you just take a look at "democracy" in the US and UK, do you believe its real, or a charade? Is it repairable, or should we bin this system and start again.....there are a lot of BIG questions to be answered , and not much time

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 06:06 PM

Excellent speech from Gorgeous George.....finest orator in politics.
First time I've seen that gnu (thanks)......the speech was not covered by any UK media, as far as I am aware, that says it all really.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 03:10 PM

Even if true that Israel would like things not to change, that hardly makes them responsible for the war starting.
Israel is blameless in this war.

Suppose they did want to bomb Iran, that would not start this war either.
No blame on Israel.

So what if Israel and US share intelligence.
That would not set the Sunni and Shia at each other either.

You have not implicated Israel in the slightest.
Tell us how Israel was in any way responsible for the Syrian uprising and civil war please.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 02:40 PM

"And explain your need to implicate, falsely, those "Zionist" swine."

I never said such a thing. This is pure falsehood. Explain your need to put words in my mouth.

Syria's Assad regime holds the stability in place between Israel and Syria's border. The Israelis want Assad regime to continue for this reason.

"The war was entirely and totally internal, apart from intervention by Iran and Hezbollah.
Israel has no influence on either side."

Israel wants status quo in this conflict but leans toward Assad. What they want to do is
bomb Iran which will present a world war three scenario since Assad's Syria and Iran
are allies. If the Rebels succeed, Israel will have to be concerned that Syria will turn to
Sunni governance. Then Israel will be a religious target. If the Alawites remain in power, Israel will have less concerned except for Hezbollah. Syria is still smarting from the takeover of the Golan Heights by Israel and the continued expansion. This is a sore point which has not been resolved since 1967.

Israel and Syria

When the U.S. blows its nose, Israel sneezes. The Israeli intelligence is not trustworthy.
They tried to link the Gaza Freedom Flotilla to Al Qaeda with their propaganda.

On August 26, Yaakov Amidror, Shin Bet and US National Security Avisor, Susan Rice
planned the aftermath of a US strike on Syria that they thought would happen.

The intelligence for the use of chemical weapons by Assad was provided originally by
Israeli Intelligence upon which the US relied. AIPAC is lobbying for an attack on Syria.
If the US refuses to attack Syria, Israel threatens continuously to bomb Syria's ally, Iran.
I think you can see where this is going.

The American people don't want this war. Israel better take note.

****************************************************************************************

As for the UN inspectors, it wasn't just Syria that limited their access but the Obama's administration willing to bypass their complete findings in favor of an invasion.

Anyone who believes Western Main Stream Media deserves to have their head examined.
Since there has been no actual evidence to convict Assad shown to the public one can assume that transparent information is locked up under a "classified" key.

There are no good actors in this debacle. Hezbollah has aligned itself with Assad. Syria needs Iran. Hamas is on the side of the Sunni Rebels. Russia backs Assad because its only naval base in the Mediterranean is in Syria. They are afraid of US hegemony.

6 culprits in the invasion

I agree with Noam Chomsky that an attack on Syria would constitute a war crime.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: gnu
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 12:22 PM

Parliament speech by George Galloway. WOW!

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 09:42 AM

And now for something completely different:

ALERTS TO THREATS
IN 2013 EUROPE

From JOHN CLEESE

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels ..

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.


Regards,
John Cleese ,
British writer, actor and tall person


And as a final thought - Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.

Life is too short...

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 07:45 AM

"Putin: Russia doesn't defend Assad, we defend international law"

Hahahahahahahaha!!!

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: gnu
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 06:59 AM

Putin interview.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 03:59 AM

UN Weapons Inspectors Mandate?

To determine whether or not Chemical weapons were used.

That and that alone - They were specifically forbidden by the UN to apportion blame on either side for the attack.

So they went to Damascus
Visited the site of the attack
Collected forensic samples
Visited hospitals
Interviewed Doctors and patients

OK tell me what else they were allowed to do by the Syrian Authorities?
Any visits to Syrian Army Chemical storage sites?
Any samples of Syrian Army Chemical warfare agents for comparison?
Any explanation of the delay in allowing the inspections in the first place?

The Syrians did this before after the Israelis with the help of the Turks destroyed it's secret nuclear weapons site - the Syrians delayed allowing IAEA inspectors in while they sanitized the place - didn't work as the instrumentation brought in still detected nuclear particles that could not be naturally explained.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Sep 13 - 01:10 AM

UN Inspectors pressured into folding up their tents - UN inspectors told to leave early.

That is how "western" MSM reported it.

This is what actually happened:

1: Their date of departure was 31st August 2013
2: Their original planned time of departure on that date was 07:00hrs
3: Their actual time of departure on that date was 04:00hrs

WOW.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 10:30 PM

Not surprisingly, the "Syrian crisis" has been virtually the only thing the US television media has been reporting on. Secretary Kerry just finished an interview with "All In"'s Chris Hayes. Kerry wasn't saying anything new - just repeating the same talking points and call to arms he's been repeating the past week to the American people, the media, the Senate, the House ...and it seems as though in the Hayes interview there was an edge of frustration in his voice as he says for what seems like the thousandth time "there will be no boots on the ground" and "this is not Iraq."

No shit. As if this situation being different is all the justification needed for lobbing in a few missiles on the Syrians.

It seems like the bottom line in Kerry's narrowly scripted declarations is "Trust us on this one." He can offer no evidence (surprise: it's all classified); he can't speculate on the outcome of US military intervention in Syria (but it's the right thing to do); he can't explain exactly why intervening in Syria is in the interest of "national security" (but it is); can't comment on why the international community doesn't seem to be as gung-ho as he is for a military strike (even though that community is as repulsed by the use of chemical weapons as the US is).

And he seems frustrated that for all his efforts, he doesn't seem to be convincing anyone that this is a good idea, no matter the degree of "high confidence" he has that al-Assad gassed his own people.

In retrospect, perhaps (ironically) George W. Bush's greatest legacy is that after his inept prosecution of the Iraq war, America was reluctant to fall in lock-step with the next cowboy diplomat that says the answer to all our foreign policy problems is "let's go bomb something."

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 09:35 PM

Check this Brutality of Syrian Rebels Poses a Dilemma in the West for some perspective on the Syrian Rebels, and then read the letters to get a sense of how Americans, Liberal and Conservative, feel about this.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 07:37 PM

I believe I heard that Senator McCain said there are weapons in the pipeline (no pun intended, believe it or not) now which will reach the Syrian opposition soon. He is certainly correct that the Syrians would be better off without Assad.   It is not warmongering on his part, contrary to the comfortable stereotypes of some Mudcatters who can't conceive of anything beyond cardboard heroes and villains.   But he is in the distinct minority in the US now on this. The overwhelming majority of the US public does not think regime change should be our goal now in Syria.   A good number think we should stay out for good, and more--including many in the military--think there are too many unanswered questions right now to get in.

Even if weapons are in fact on the way to the Syrian opposition, it doesn't seem likely they willl be getting any more support beyond this any time soon.

The response to Assad has been bollixed up good and proper.

And by this Obama may have killed his own effectiveness on other issues for the rest of his second term.--as I noted earlier, earning the status of an--early--lame duck.

If the resolution passes in the Senate but not in the House, he may be able to beat this rap, since he can then at least claim it was Republicans who stopped his attempt to respond to the chemical attacks.

It's time to get past this tragic farce and return to issues Obama can actually do some good on--like immigration reform. Before he squanders the rest of the political capital he might have had.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 07:04 PM

No they have not. They [ the U.N. Inspectors ] have been pressured to "fold up their tent"

Yup. Just like Iraq. Its deja vu all over again.....

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 05:35 PM

McCain is opposed to the Obama plan in that he wants ground troops which is not offered in the white house proposal.
Mc Cain wanted a Georgian war along with 5 more. He is war starved.
Toss the geezer a bone will ya.



It took Nixon to put Chairman's Mao Red Communist China on the path to Wall Mart red capitalism.

It took Obama to turn the Republican Hawk party into doves and pacifists. THEY WILL VOTE NO because they have to do the opposite of every Obama proposal even if it something the republicans first proposed.


I would love to find out that a no vote activated some hidden fine print that made every no voter actually agree that they were not born in the United states. Trump that

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 05:25 PM

Israel is far from blameless. It follows the usual line of propaganda that it has created.
AIPAC in the U.S. is an example of extremism encouraged by the Israeli propaganda.

So what has any of that got to do with Syria???
The war was entirely and totally internal, apart from intervention by Iran and Hezbollah.
Israel has no influence on either side.
Both sides hate Israel more than they hate each other.

Tell us something Israel actually did, or did not do, that has led in any way to this war between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

And explain your need to implicate, falsely, those "Zionist" swine.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 01:06 PM

"The UN inspectors have completed their task in Syria"

No they have not. They have been pressured to "fold up their tent". The evidence has not been provided to the American public because the administration refused to offer it claiming it's "classified".


" which I note Stringsinger specifically does not accuse Hezbollah of - wonder why.

There is an implication here that I support Hezbollah which is not true. Any action on
the part of Hezbollah, an extremist organization is far less than what Israel has done
to exacerbate war in the Middle East.

"What US invasion? No such thing has been proposed by either the POTUS or the Pentagon"

They have been cagey with their double-talk. In fact, any strike on Syria must be regarded as an invasion. To say otherwise is playing with words.

The complaint about the use of chemical weapons is a red-herring and a propaganda
attempt to invade Syria. It has to be asked, where did the sarin if it was used come from?
We know in Iraq where Hussein obtained his arms and how the U.S. said nothing when the actual use of his chemical weapons were used. Later, they held it over his head.

"Also, McCain is opposing this intervention."

No he has not. He has aligned himself with Kerry, Lindsey Graham, Boehner and other hawks to insist on this deceptive "surgical strike" which constitutes an intervention.

"I am pleased that you agree with me on Israel being blameless"

Israel is far from blameless. It follows the usual line of propaganda that it has created.
AIPAC in the U.S. is an example of extremism encouraged by the Israeli propaganda.
Israel has been looking for any excuse they can find to bomb Syria and Iran. The Netanyahu government is out to create a religious war between Judaism and Islam.
Palestinians are second-class citizens in Israel today.

"If so please indicate Israel's culpability in Syria's implosion."

By continuing joint military exercises, sabre rattling, they exacerbate the hostile
climate. They may even have a stockpile of sarin which leads to a speculation, not proof.
Their spy networks are well-known throughout the world and have been employed
to assassinate Mid East leaders they think are extremists, without a trial by jury, by the way. Of course, they are not under the U.S. Constitution.

Islamic and Israeli extremists are equally culpable in stirring the poison pot in the Mid East. Both elements have a powerful role in their respective governments.
Israeli dissidents are harshly and undemocratically treated there as in Bahrain, Egypt,
Syria and elsewhere. This is what Islamic and Zionist extremists have in common, suppress dissent.

"an actual invasion would be a good thing!"

If by good it's meant an attempt to crush the Assad regime, this is terribly naive. Assad
will emerge as a "hero" to many Mid East extremists, unlike what Kerry has claimed as the rise of moderates, a false appraisal of the Syrian Rebels, but a real rise in the ranks of Al Nousra and Al Quaeda, a dangerous precedent that could easily trigger another world war. The majority of the Syrian Rebels would like to see a return to Sharia Law, not a democratic institution of government.

The only evidence we have for the invasion of Syria is what took place in Iraq when the administration egregiously lied to the American people and Colin Powell smeared himself in his presentation on T.V. Any other evidence supposedly shored up by Obama's administration is deemed "classified" and unavailable in an erstwhile "transparent"
society.

It has to be reminded that sarin gas which killed approximately 500 people, not the inflated figure that Obama has cited, is nothing compared to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nobody drew a "red line" there, did they?

The only solution to this crisis is through negotiations with many countries in the world who condemn the Assad regime. Russia and the U.S. need to reach a rapprochement
quickly but "surgical strikes" are not the way to do it. There are some who would like
to continue the cold war between U.S. and Russia by condemning Russia for refusing to support the invasion. Obama, with his influential speech-making and political maneuvering could accomplish much as a statesman to galvanize the isolation of Assad through diplomatic means.

The problem is not only Assad but U.S. hegemony and the too powerful influence of the Pentagon and munitions makers.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 12:50 PM

To Lord Lamont I would draw his attention to the following points in relation to the war that was being waged between Iran and Iraq at the time:

1: Nobody in the world wanted to see either side victorious in that war, so the international drive was to ensure that it ended in stalemate.

2: Iran signed up to the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention and ratified it the following year. Iraq also signed in 1972 but did not ratify it until 1991.

3: Therefore during the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq was not bound by any treaty and they could not be forced to comply with it by the UN or anybody else.

4: When people refer to Saddam Hussein and his use of chemical agents, the attack that is mentioned is not the 30-odd attacks he made in 1983 against Iranian targets, but Operation Anfal the attack against his own Kurdish citizens in 1988 - something the UN COULD do something about but DIDN'T - perhaps Lord Lamont should take that up with them - what was it that Lord Lamont was doing in 1983? (Member of Parliament wasn't he? - by 1988 he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury in fact. Any record of him saying anything at the time? - If so I don't recall it)

5: "A recent article in the US magazine Foreign Policy claimed that US officials who gave Iraq intelligence about Iranian troop movements, did so in the knowledge that the Iraqis would use chemical weapons."

The actual documents revealed that Iraq had used chemical weapons and concluded that they might use them at some time in the future, they also were of the opinion that use of such weapons would not force Iran to negotiate a peace deal.

6: "the West's position in the past has been woefully far from consistent?"

The "West's" position has been remarkably consistent, who was it that drove the 1993 CWC. If any one organisation has proved inconsistent it has been the UN with regard to classifying and acting on acts of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

To Mr. T.K.Day I would say this:

1: "You call for a military response in Syria. But why a military response?"

I would imagine because a good stiff ticking off in writing would not be very effective.

2: "Lobbing relatively small quantities of high explosives on to hardened targets in Syria (which is all that cruise missiles can achieve) is merely a gesture, and one that might produce
many civilian casualties."

If Bashar Al-Assad knew that those missiles would be targeting him I would imagine that it would give him pause for thought.

3: "To do more than this would be it alter the balance of power in Syria in favour of the rebels, more than a few of whom are not allies of the West."

Would you care to let us all in on who are our allies in Syria? None ever as far as I can recall. But if we act forcefully enough we might just succeed in stopping them from killing one another with chemical weapons.

4: "This is a situation where we should seek a political and legal solution first, bringing on board as many of our allies as possible."

Nothing to do with us or our allies what happens inside Syria - That is a matter for the Syrian people and if they have to fight for it - as we did - then let them get on with it.


5: "If, despite all, a military solution is to be pursued it should be undertaken only with a clear idea of the aims and consequences, and only with sufficient forces to achieve a quick victory and to replace the regime with a more acceptable one.

Who rules Syria has got nothing to do with us, it is a matter for the Syrian nation. By the way, acceptable to who Mr. Day??

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 12:36 PM

So what can the Obama administration do without Congress?   No cruise missile attacks, that's for sure.

Anthing else? It could be argued that we should in fact be arming the Syrian opposition.   But we would have to be sure it's not al-Queda sympathizers we are arming.

And even arming the opposition is unlikely now that Obama has given the Syrian crisis the highest possible profile.   It is quite likely that there will be those in Congress asking pointed questions about any assistance the US would give.   And it's not at all clear if Congress could actually agree to do anything.

So our help to the Syrian opposition could wind up being a lot of hot air--and virtually nothing else.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 11:34 AM

"make an attack"

The unexpected consequence from this may however be that Obama does not get the usual 2 year window in a second term to be effective but is a lame duck from now on.

And this would be disastrous for anybody who is in favor of any of his agenda--as I am.

And of course will preclude any chance of the US doing anything to stop Assad's use of chemical weapons--which seems to be a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 11:29 AM

This has all the earmarks of a classic political disaster for Obama.   He and his administration did not think this through.   And I speak as one who has strongly supported him and does believe that the use of chemical weapons should be prevented.

But this is in fact a trap he has set for himself.

It is very unlikely that even the compromise resolution cited above will be passed by Congress.

The combination of skepticism on the left and a solid anti-Obama group on the right will likely defeat the resolution.   

And in fact there is no justification for the US going it alone.    The Arab states in the region should be leading this effort.   They have gone on record as against the use of chemical weapons by Assad.    But look at their actual attitude: the following states are against any attack unless sanctioned by the UN:      Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Tunesia and Algeria.

And with Russia and China both against any attack, what chance do you suppose UN support for such an attack would have.

So let's consider an attack without UN support. The UK would not be participating in the attack.   Would France?   Again, doubtful. In theory the French government does not need legislative OK for such participation.   But in fact, since both the US and UK leaderships have asked their legislatures for such assent, it's likely the French leadership would feel compelled to do so.   And it may well be defeated in such a move.

So what's the likely outcome?    The Obama administration, despite the passion of Mr. Kerry---and even some outside the Obama administration, such as Senator McCain---will not have the votes to get this through.

So it will be defeated. And Obama will not make at attack without it.

It could even be argued that Obama will be fine with this---he can assert that he tried to prevent use by Assad of chemical weapons but was prevented in doing so by Congress.


To be continued

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 11:00 AM

Even amateurs know that to have a good ole American war you have to meet with the weapon contractors, neocon think tanks and Billy Graham to put on a song and dance tribute to the heroes who will march off to glory.

All the high falootin international treaty crap and asking congress to actually take a stand before the carnage begins is not the way it is done.

First get Tucker Carlson to do a 40 minute special in soft low light with a hidden face witness to Syrian WMD's and prove the case for war with hand drawings of the locations and time lines of Syrian threats to American Christians.

Then defend the claims with Judge Nepolitano and retired brigadier General Armand Chair. Bill Cristal and Krauthammer will fill in the gaps.

All this will lead up to the really big gums and guns of paid persuasion like Cheney and God's representatives, if not god himself, to give the final word for war.

The temerity of Obama to think that the Constitution, international treaties and law have anything to do with war and American CIA foreign policy is just plain naïve.


We and the world expect America to lie. that's WHY THEY LOVE TO HATE US. At this point the truth is just confusing to everyone involved.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 10:55 AM

Two interesting letters below from today's 'Times' (London)
The second makes complete sense to me, the second is a remarkable statement considering who it comes from.
"Thinking of someone else."
First time for everything - thinking, that is!
"Still, after much jockeying over the exact wording, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution authorizing the use of military force in Syria in a vote that avoided party lines, with Democrats and Republicans on both sides. The action cleared the way for a vote in the full Senate, likely next week.
The committee voted 10-7 in favor of a compromise resolution that sets a 60-day limit on any engagement in Syria, with a possible 30-day extension, and bars the use of U.S. troops on the ground for combat operations."
Jim Carroll

Sir. Your leading article (Sept 3)
about Syria and chemical weapons refer" to the need "to uphold international norms and legal prohibitions that have held since 1925 on the use of chemical weapons". Your editorial memory is curiously selective. The West has in the past turned a blind eye to the us of chemical weapon". In 1988 Saddam Hussein used mustard gas
and sarin against Iranian troops killing 20,000 and leaving 100.000 wounded. A recent article in the US
magazine Foreign Policy claimed that US officials who gave Iraq intelligence about Iranian troop movements, did so in the knowledge that the Iraqis would use chemical weapons. The Iranians even flew some victims to British hospitals and tried to raise the issue in the UN. The West was indifferent. You are right: the use of chemical
weapons is, indeed, horrific and unacceptable. But if you wish to carry conviction with your arguments, should you not at least acknowledge the West's position in the past has been woefully far from consistent?
Lord Lamont
House of Lords

Sir, You call for a military response in Syria. But why a military response? One would have to be sure that a military response did more good than harm. Lobbing relatively small quantities of high explosives on to hardened targets in Syria (which is all that cruise missiles can achieve) is merely a gesture, and one that might produce
many civilian casualties. To do more than this would be it alter the balance of power in Syria in favour of the rebels, more than a few of whom are not allies of the West.
This is a situation where we should seek a political and legal solution first, bringing on board as many of our allies as possible.
After all, nobody is in favour of gassing children, so most people can agree about that as a starting point.
If, despite all, a military solution is to be pursued it should be undertaken only with a clear idea of the aims and consequences, and only with sufficient forces to achieve a quick victory and to replace the regime with a more acceptable one.
T. K. DAY
London SW15

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 10:36 AM

I take that back.
Thinking of someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 10:31 AM

Also, McCain is opposing this intervention.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 10:22 AM

" Let McCain go on the mission so he can die a hero, and let his military record say something other than being a prisoner or having a rocket from his jet set fire to a US aircraft carrier."

What a complete and utter load of rubbish Donuel

Now please correct me if I am in error in any of the following:

1: Lt-Cdr John McCain flew a Skyhawk A-4E (Aircaft No: 416)
2: The M32 "Zuni" Rocket that initiated the incident was accidentally discharged due to an electrical fault from a deck parked Macdonnell-Douglas F-4B Phantom II (Aircraft No: 110) - most definitely not Lt-Cdr John McCain's aircraft.
3: The rocket hit the wing mounted external fuel tank on Skyhawk A-4E (Aircraft No: 405) parked but awaiting launch piloted by Lt-Cdr Fred D. White - the missile did not detonate but the roket motor igniited the fuel escaping from the fuel tank
4: The aircraft parked to the left of White's Skyhawk on the flight deck was McCain's Skyhawk.
5: Truth of the matter is - apart from escaping from the carnage wrought - John McCain had nothing whatsoever to do with starting any fire.

Now what remnains to be seen is whether or not you possess the integrity to either retract the statement or offer any apology.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 08:56 AM

There is one and only one response that all Americans (including the usual gang of idiots here) will support that will not threaten escalation toward nuclear war.

Operation Ball Buster:

16 Navy seals in noise dampening slippers and 4 NFL kickers with cleats sneak into Hassad's bedroom and duck tape him spread eagled for the 4 NFL kickers to kick King Hassad in the balls every ten seconds for as long as time allows.



PS Let McCain go on the mission so he can die a hero, and let his military record say something other than being a prisoner or having a rocket from his jet set fire to a US aircraft carrier.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 08:24 AM

Obama has ruled out an invasion.
He is not that much of a Blimp!

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 08:21 AM

Congress passed first stage of 'Blimp' Obamas bill on military intervention
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 08:12 AM

Strinsinger has mentioned Israel and "Zionists" a few times in this context.
He clearly does think that Israel has done something.
I am pleased that you agree with me on Israel being blameless, if not on your belief that an actual invasion would be a good thing!
I wonder how many here can take that seriously, you gung-ho old Blimp you.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 07:13 AM

"Do you challenge that observation?"
You wind up like a clockwork toy Keith
Not a comment on Israel, the facts speak for themselves - just one on you.
Your days as a Mossad agent are over, nobody takes you seriously any more
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 05:20 AM

"The inference that there are only warmongers that are acceptable is totally unacceptable. Israel's launching of missiles and joint military exercises with the U.S. in an area which is a tinder box is irresponsible. That's warmongering."

I believe that the exercises you refer to are are being carried out at sea off the coast of Israel and that the missiles being fired are being fired to replicate/simulate missiles being fired into Israel from Syria, or Lebanon, by either the Assad regime or by Hezbollah (Haven't they already declared that they will do this in the event of a strike by the US? - Or when they said that were they only jest joshin')

Verifying that your anti-missile systems are up to snuff after having been openly threatened seems a pretty prudent thing to do to me and in no way can exercising a purely defensive system be construed as "warmongering" - which I note Stringsinger specifically does not accuse Hezbollah of - wonder why.

"It doesn't stop Assad who thrives on the blood and gore of war."

A quick cable or e-mail addressed - Attn: Bashar Al-Assad stating that the next gas attack results immediately in something being launched directly at you that goes bang might dampen his ardour for blood and gore.

"The U.S. through invasion is giving him exactly what he wants, a martyr's wreath around his neck and a so-called surgical strike will not impede his use of chemical weapons in the future. If anything it would make a hero out of him."

What US invasion? No such thing has been proposed by either the POTUS or the Pentagon - it is you who are being alarmist based upon absolutely nothing. A surgical strike with clear and unambiguous forewarning of intent to take out the Ba'athist leadership in Syria would most certainly impede any future use of such chemical weapons on the part of the Assad Regime.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 04:02 AM

"Israel is blameless in all this."

Do you challenge that observation?
If so please indicate Israel's culpability in Syria's implosion.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 03:11 AM

"Israel is blameless in all this."
Aren't they always?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Sep 13 - 02:45 AM

Israel's launching of missiles and joint military exercises with the U.S. in an area which is a tinder box is irresponsible.

My understanding is that they launched one missile, towards Israel, and intercepted it to test their defences.
That is not irresponsible.
It would be irresponsible not to.

Obama says Syria WILL be hit.
Assad has implied that he will retaliate against Israel and Hezbollah stated unequivocally that they would.
Israel must anticipate an attack upon its cities.

Israel is blameless in all this.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 06:15 PM

Wonder what happened with Obama and Putin? Here's your answer.

Putin rejects invasion

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 05:41 PM

Ake, I agree with you wholeheartedly. The inference that there are only warmongers
that are acceptable is totally unacceptable. Israel's launching of missiles and joint military exercises with the U.S. in an area which is a tinder box is irresponsible. That's warmongering. It doesn't stop Assad who thrives on the blood and gore of war.
The U.S. through invasion is giving him exactly what he wants, a martyr's wreath around his neck and a so-called surgical strike will not impede his use of chemical weapons in the future. If anything it would make a hero out of him.

"liberal" ideology has been perverted by the "neo-liberal" agendas. The warmongers in Washington have somehow returned to a nostalgia for military might that was prevalent in the Second World War or in what they perceived as the heroics in Vietnam or Korea.
McCain and Kerry may have carried with them a kind of PTSD. Kerry's incursion into
Cambodia shouldn't be ignored.

It has to be said that warmongers in Washington are using the military solution to
aggrandize their power politically. This is not a moral position as they would have you
believe. If the American public protests loudly enough, they could change their minds
in a New York minute but as long as they can fool you into this escapade they retain
political power unequaled in times of peace.

The ideological weapons in this war are more lethal than sarin gas.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 05:22 PM

People power Frank, the politicians realised this would not be tolerated by the electorate. Cameron and Hague were defeated, and I hope your representatives can read the runes.....Rescuing Mr Obama and his administration, is not worth all the terror and destruction which will ensue from the removal of Mr Assad.

Somewhere along the way, common sense must take precedent over "liberal" ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 04:59 PM

Ake, thank you.

There are some on this thread who really know what's going on. I think we can
all sidestep the U.S./Israel propaganda which got us into Iraq.

The invasion of Syria is a war crime. Assad is a mad man and an invasion will
strengthen his hand. The Rebels are not reliable.

Russia and Iran have stated they think the Rebels might have used sarin. We don't
really know the truth in spite of what John Kerry says. He has been shown to be
untrustworthy on this issue by hypocritically posing as a Winter Soldier in the case of Vietnam and changing his stripes on the issue of Syria.

I don't think you can trust any of the countries involved for correct information
since the agendas are quite clear.

By downgrading the role of the UN via the inspectors, the U.S. and Israel have
isolated themselves from the rest of the world community.

Britain was smart to have declined from supporting this redux of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 04:53 PM

I got a better idea - let's have the U.S. pay the Arab countries to take care of it.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 04:34 PM

Stringsinger is way off the mark, as usual, about who is warmongering.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 04:28 PM

Pimp my war:

Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday's hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.

"With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes," Kerry said. "They have. That offer is on the table."

Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.

"In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we've done it previously in other places, they'll carry that cost," Kerry said. "That's how dedicated they are at this. That's not in the cards, and nobody's talking about it, but they're talking in serious ways about getting this done.

The Washington Post

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 11:58 AM

Good man Frank...well said.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 10:58 AM

We are not being given appropriate evidence through a deception. The numbers reputedly given as victims of sarin have been inflated to gin up the war. We don't even really know that sarin was used. This is propaganda blown up to incite invasion. The Israelis are launching missiles to punctuate this point. Remember yellow cake and WMD's?

The UN inspectors have not been given ample time to make scientific determinations and the Obama is thwarting their efforts in the same way Bush did in Iraq to bypass the UN and act unilaterally plunging America into another hapless debacle. The consequences will be "boots on the ground" and innocent American soldiers giving their lives for nothing. Kerry is misleading the public, a tragic reversal of his stance in Vietnam. Someone must have bought him out.

"Mission creep" is a hallmark of military propaganda making the munitions makers wealthy while so many Americans are destitute. The consequences of an invasion far outweigh the prudent caution resulting in a rise of Al Quaeda in the Rebel ranks which Obama and Kerry are hypocritically supporting. There are no moderates left in the Rebel ranks, an out-and-out lie manufactured for another Bush war. These Rebels are Islamic Jihadists, Al Quaeda and Al Nousra, the very ones who reputedly brought down the twin towers on 911. They want an Islamic Syria with Sharia Law.

Israel is licking it's chops to bomb Iran and the widening of this war will make that available with U.S. backing.

The warmongers are in control of the megaphone and all sanity has left the political arena except for a few stalwart and courageous dissenters.

Once again, the American public is being hoodwinked and their tax dollars extracted
for a meaningless incursion into insanity.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 10:02 AM

PMs avoid spoiling threads for others.
I do not put "billious outpourings" in them.
Another lie.
Everything is indeed on record here, but no-one will be looking.
No-one cares about us Jim.
Use pm.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 09:39 AM

"I fear you may be mentally ill."
Keith - everything and more I have described is on record - including on four current threads; it is all a matter of record
Your behaviour on this forum can only be described as extreme filibustering in support of extremist causes.
It makes rational discussion of any topic you set your mind on virtually impossible; even ignoring you doesn't work as you pursue your cause and every single person who disagrees with you with an obsessive tenacity - you invariably end up 'the last man standing' with the greatest number of individual postings.
PMs don't work as they invariably end up being an extreme repetition of your postings with the gloves off, such as with your bilious outpourings on Muslim 'implants'.
It has already been the death of numerous threads and is gradually destroying this forum.
To say you have expressed "no opinion at all about the famine" regarding a topic you have all but destroyed, yet is still on full view for all to access, is utterly and blatantly insane.
By the way, to describe verified criticism of Britain as being "mentally ill" is a dead giveaway - sorry about that.
I'll leave you to your work
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Sep 13 - 08:51 AM

How much worse can it get?
Over 100 000 dead already and rising fast every day.
2 million refugees have crossed the border to the despair of neighbours and millions more displaced inside.
Winter is coming and the misery can only intensify.
Doing nothing is simply no longer an option, but as long as Assad remains, nothing can be done.

But then again, a strike might indeed make things worse.
Our leaders have no more idea than we do.