Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

[cobben]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

Recall that Mark Ames was with Taibbi in Russia for 15 years as expat journalists gone wild. They have experience mucking with Putin.

Q: Is Putin Really Planning To Bomb Saudi Arabia?

By Mark Ames

One of the wildest rumors about the Syria War going around last week claimed that Vladimir Putin ordered Russia’s military chiefs to draw up plans for a full-scale military attack on Saudi Arabia if US-led forces bomb Syria.

I initially ignored the rumor as it made the rounds on Russian websites and some dicey English-language conspiracy sites. But then I got a note forwarded to me written by a retired French intelligence officer making the same claim: that Putin has ordered his forces to prepare for full-scale war on Saudi Arabia.

The only other time this source had communicated to me was in the early days of the 2008 Georgia-Russia war in South Ossetia. He had rightly identified the Georgians as starting that conflict at a time when all the Western media and political leaders claimed the opposite, that Putin had invaded Georgia unprovoked.

. . .

Meanwhile, inside of Russia, Putin’s hold on power has never been weaker, his popularity never lower, and his paranoia has been making him increasingly eccentric, which is a little jarring coming from someone as cool, sober and controlled as Putin used to be. So yeah, the rumors that Putin told his military staff to prepare plans to attack Saudi Arabia in the event of a US attack on Syria are crazy. But wars make for a lot of crazy and a lot of surprises that you never thought possible.

[touchring]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

Are you claiming that somehow trying to enforce a global ban on the use of chemical weapons is going to discourage a terrorist from using whatever means necessary to hurt people? Like somehow it would be more "illegal" to use Sarin in the subways of NYC as opposed to setting off a bomb? And that's going to make them stop and think and decide not to do it, because Obama might not approve?

Terrorists will use whatever they can get hold of including nukes. But they can't get hold of nukes or Sarin unless the governments that back them supply them with the material. The issues is not that you can discourage a terrorist, but whether you will punish a government that supplies them with such weapons.

Putin asks for evidence that Syria used Sarin. This is a dangerous precedence even for Moscow. In the future, any government can secretly supply any terrorist organization with Sarin or even nukes because they can hide behind the "show me concrete evidence" rule. Government spy organizations are smart enough not to leave behind any direct evidence.

My stance is that the international community needs to draw a red line.

Obama is trying to negotiate a political solution, to persuade Russia to force Syria to give up their Sarin weapons, but you can't make yourself look serious unless you can show that you're prepared to fight. This is a game of guts which I think the US is having the advantage because the Arabs are on their side.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

I don't think for a moment there is any conclusive proof Assad was behind the gas attack. We are supposed to believe the same people that said Benghazi was a protest gone violent?. And Obama was ready to go with no proof. Just bam, lets go. People need to be asking themselves why are some of these Congressmen so gung-ho to get involved in yet another War in the Middle East? This is not about gas attacks, of that I am relatively sure. These people are playing with fire. They are going to get a lot of people killed, and many may be American citizens this time. Simply amazing how cavalier people can be about killing and war. "just lob a few missiles" as if Syria won't retaliate. Syria is not Libya circa 1986.

If there were conclusive proof, they would have shown us by now. France wouldn't be so skittish. Other countries would agree.

It's just about 10 years after the "proof" of WMDs in Iraq, which was more substantial than this even in Colin Powell's false, blurry, black and white powerpoint to the UN.

I don't know what's classified. I don't know what they know that I don't know. I do know they lied to us about this exact scenario 10 years ago. And to quote the man spearheading the last lie:

There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.

[vt]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

Obama and Kerry are totally inept in foreign policy:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/09/Putin-takes-advantage-of-kerry-blunder

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...0.html?hp=t2_3

http://gma.yahoo.com/did-us-offer-sy...opstories.html

[Bundi]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

I don't know what's classified. I don't know what they know that I don't know.

Agreed, it is hard to know with any certainty what variables are driving the decision.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...nd-meda.1.html


I find it somewhat revealing that President Obama is now seeking congressional approval as opposed simply pursuing action with executive authority only. This decision suggests to me that he views the risks as too high versus any perceived gains. President Bush did the same, if I recall correctly but that was in a mid term year and with heavy 9/11 sentiment still swirling. The sentiment and timing in this case provide a very different political backdrop. Surely Obama knows this to be the case, even for a limited action (at least as the administration describes it).

If the question was will he or won't he, as opposed to should he or shouldn't he, I would perhaps naively lean toward he won't.

[lektrode]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

Agreed, it is hard to know with any certainty what variables are driving the decision....

my guess (uneducated, bluecollared/J6P/somewhat redneck'd POV) would be that its got something to do with THIS ?
(and the urgent need for The Next Big Distraction, since gun control is dead and THE Social Issue is looking like its in the bag)

I find it somewhat revealing that President Obama is now seeking congressional approval as opposed simply pursuing action with executive authority only. ....

methinks it makes purrrfect sense - he gets to blame somebody else no matter what happens - if the repubs in congress dont go along, and things get worse - its their fault - if they do decide that guns vs butter is a better bet for their .mil complex 'constituents' - then, its their fault again?

the triangulator-in-chief is getting no doubt desparate to start looking prezidentshul again (and eager to dump his ditherer-in-chief 'status' - that and it keeps ole John F(raud) in the game (since he needs to upstage hilary at this point, as she'll crush him in 2016, at present course and speed ;)

[Bundi]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

Hey lektrode,

I’m guessing too so who knows actually?

I agree with your belief that it probably does have much to do with the topics in this report.

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...t-Eric-Janszen

It seems to me that the threats of action and actual action have two different equations associated with them (neither having particularly much directly to do with chemical weapons). The problem for President Obama is in assessing which of the multiple variables in either scenario are truly limiting, as things stand right now anyway. I am not sure that action is safe in that it may create a more limiting factor than it addresses. If the calculus is in fact different and a truly limiting factor is so close at hand that it is being viewed as worse than action, buckle up.

If it were truly the latter, why go to congress? Maybe he has been promised the votes but there seems to be risk there that is more pronounced than the upside from being able to say the Republicans trumped my real intentions, blame them.

[c1ue]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

What's really jarring for me is how Kerry, Obama et al keep referring to 1429 dead when everyone else is saying 500 or so.

You'd think it would be pretty easy to prove the former vs. the latter.

Just one of many incongruities with the 'evidence' against Assad - not the least of which is the Israel provided 'smoking gun'.

At this point, even my previously extremely low view of US credibility in this issue is being pushed further down.

[flintlock]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

Recall that Mark Ames was with Taibbi in Russia for 15 years as expat journalists gone wild. They have experience mucking with Putin.

Q: Is Putin Really Planning To Bomb Saudi Arabia?

By Mark Ames

One of the wildest rumors about the Syria War going around last week claimed that Vladimir Putin ordered Russia’s military chiefs to draw up plans for a full-scale military attack on Saudi Arabia if US-led forces bomb Syria.

I initially ignored the rumor as it made the rounds on Russian websites and some dicey English-language conspiracy sites. But then I got a note forwarded to me written by a retired French intelligence officer making the same claim: that Putin has ordered his forces to prepare for full-scale war on Saudi Arabia.

The only other time this source had communicated to me was in the early days of the 2008 Georgia-Russia war in South Ossetia. He had rightly identified the Georgians as starting that conflict at a time when all the Western media and political leaders claimed the opposite, that Putin had invaded Georgia unprovoked.

. . .

Meanwhile, inside of Russia, Putin’s hold on power has never been weaker, his popularity never lower, and his paranoia has been making him increasingly eccentric, which is a little jarring coming from someone as cool, sober and controlled as Putin used to be. So yeah, the rumors that Putin told his military staff to prepare plans to attack Saudi Arabia in the event of a US attack on Syria are crazy. But wars make for a lot of crazy and a lot of surprises that you never thought possible.

Russia is not going to bomb anyone.

[flintlock]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

And what a bunch of bungling clowns handling our foreign affairs. Kerry shoots his mouth off and hands Putin a way out for Syria. Obama then had no choice but to say , "sure, they turn over stocks of chem weapons and no attack", between clinched teeth.

[touchring]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

What's really jarring for me is how Kerry, Obama et al keep referring to 1429 dead when everyone else is saying 500 or so.

You'd think it would be pretty easy to prove the former vs. the latter.

Just one of many incongruities with the 'evidence' against Assad - not the least of which is the Israel provided 'smoking gun'.

At this point, even my previously extremely low view of US credibility in this issue is being pushed further down.

It doesn't matter whether it is 1429 or 500, fact is everyone is 99% are secretly rejoicing the deaths of the wives and children of al qaeda terrorists, applauding Assad for the good deed and he should go further and smoke the rest that are still alive.

Did I spell Hypocrazy correctly?

[c1ue]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

Meanwhile, inside of Russia, Putin’s hold on power has never been weaker, his popularity never lower, and his paranoia has been making him increasingly eccentric, which is a little jarring coming from someone as cool, sober and controlled as Putin used to be. So yeah, the rumors that Putin told his military staff to prepare plans to attack Saudi Arabia in the event of a US attack on Syria are crazy. But wars make for a lot of crazy and a lot of surprises that you never thought possible.

Mark Ames believes that the 1st Moscow apartment bombing was Chechens, but that the subsequent ones (2?) were Putin solidifying his grip on power.

Given this, it is not surprising that Ames thinks another false flag or other activity is possible.

I have to say, however, that the risk/reward scenario for Russia to attack Saudi Arabia is non-existent. Attacking Saudi Arabia does nothing to boost Putin's internal image domestically and definitely doesn't help internationally.

Ames' view on Putin's popularity is also significantly at odds with my understanding.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadom...ent-declining/

The July rating of 65% is lower than it has been, but then again it is stratospheric compared to Obama (45.3%), Hollande (27%), and Cameron (34%):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-...b_3710061.html

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/8325813.html

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/10/labour-opinion-poll?CMP=twt_fd

If we're judging likelihood to initiate violence to boost approval ratings, it would seem there are many others than Putin who have a stronger need.

[c1ue]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

It doesn't matter whether it is 1429 or 500, fact is everyone is 99% are secretly rejoicing the deaths of the wives and children of al qaeda terrorists, applauding Assad for the good deed and he should go further and smoke the rest that are still alive.

Did I spell Hypocrazy correctly?

Frankly I cannot find any points of coherence in what you've stated thus far in this thread.

Your commentary on the 'red line' is ridiculous because the US has openly announced that they are providing arms - including anti-armor and anti-aircraft weapons - to the 'Free Syrian Army' - which even you agree contains at least a few radical Islamists.

I also like how you are automatically assuming that it is Assad who is the culprit here when even the UN is unsure.

Equally the number of dead matters a great deal. If the US has such superior intelligence of what is happening, the dramatic difference in death toll is an easy way to corroborate this evidence.

However, when organizations like the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights notes only 502 dead - while the Syrian National Coalition says different, it is extremely difficult for me to lend any credence to the latter.

The latter organization is the one which is Washington based and is agitating for Western intervention on the side of the 'rebels', while the SOHR is purely observing.

It is like asking the defense attorney for an assault victim if an assault occurred. The answer is always going to be yes.

I will further point out - since you don't seem to acknowledge this - that this is the precise situation with WMD in Iraq: Iraqi 'opposition' leaders in the US were saying Saddam had WMD even as UN and Iraqi (both opposition and Baathist) were saying such reports were not credible.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...

[touchring]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

Don't you get it! 502 dead vs 1429 or even if 10,000 died, what difference does it make? Numbers don't matter when it is who had died that matters.

To prove this, had the ones being gassed were Syrian Christians, even if only 100 had died, we'll see the votes reversed and the Vatican urging Obama to take action.

Frankly I cannot find any points of coherence in what you've stated thus far in this thread.

Your commentary on the 'red line' is ridiculous because the US has openly announced that they are providing arms - including anti-armor and anti-aircraft weapons - to the 'Free Syrian Army' - which even you agree contains at least a few radical Islamists.

I also like how you are automatically assuming that it is Assad who is the culprit here when even the UN is unsure.

Equally the number of dead matters a great deal. If the US has such superior intelligence of what is happening, the dramatic difference in death toll is an easy way to corroborate this evidence.

However, when organizations like the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights notes only 502 dead - while the Syrian National Coalition says different, it is extremely difficult for me to lend any credence to the latter.

The latter organization is the one which is Washington based and is agitating for Western intervention on the side of the 'rebels', while the SOHR is purely observing.

It is like asking the defense attorney for an assault victim if an assault occurred. The answer is always going to be yes.

I will further point out - since you don't seem to acknowledge this - that this is the precise situation with WMD in Iraq: Iraqi 'opposition' leaders in the US were saying Saddam had WMD even as UN and Iraqi (both opposition and Baathist) were saying such reports were not credible.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...

[c1ue]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

Don't you get it! 502 dead vs 1429 or even 10, what difference does it matters?

To prove this, had the ones being gassed were Syrian Christians, even if only 100 had died, we'll see the difference in the vote.

I do get that any deaths are a tragedy, but you don't seem to get that the actual party responsible matters.

You also don't seem to get that 100,000 Syrians have been killed in the conflict thus far. The US prolonging this by providing money and arms to the rebels will lead to more deaths.

Why is this acceptable if your view is that any death is an avoidable tragedy?