This is a very good article by Peter Bergen. It outlines various legal mechanisms that might be used to justify to the world an attack on Assad.

For U.S., Syria is truly a problem from hell
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/26/opinion/bergen-syria-problem/index.html

But another thing it goes into is Samantha Power's (US amb to UN) highly detailed study which has been published as a book. The study looks at how (in)active the US has been at stopping genocides and massacres around the world.

Quote :

"(CNN) -- What is widely recognized as the most authoritative study of the United States' responses to mass killings around the world -- from the massacres of Armenians by the Turks a century ago, to the Holocaust, to the more recent Serbian atrocities against Bosnian Muslims and the ethnic cleansing of the Tutsis in Rwanda -- concluded that they all shared unfortunate commonalities: "Despite graphic media coverage, American policymakers, journalists and citizens are extremely slow to muster the imagination needed to reckon with evil. Ahead of the killings, they assume rational actors will not inflict seemingly gratuitous violence. They trust in good-faith negotiations and traditional diplomacy. Once the killings start, they assume that civilians who keep their head down will be left alone. They urge cease-fires and donate humanitarian aid." This is an almost perfect description of how the United States has acted over the past two years as it has tried to come up with some kind of policy to end the Assad regime's brutal war on its own people in Syria."

Her book--"A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide"--went on to win the Pulitzer Prize.

http://www.harpercollins.com/books/Problem-Hell-Samantha-Power/?isbn=9780061120145

Quote :

"Book Description In her award-winning interrogation of the last century of American history, Samantha Power—a former Balkan war correspondent and founding executive director of Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy—asks the haunting question: Why do American leaders who vow "never again" repeatedly fail to stop genocide? Drawing upon exclusive interviews with Washington's top policy makers, access to newly declassified documents, and her own reporting from the modern killing fields, Power provides the answer in "A Problem from Hell," a groundbreaking work that tells the stories of the courageous Americans who risked their careers and lives in an effort to get the United States to act."

8/30/2013 5:30:55 PM

Probably because I didn't get into religion.

Quote :

""

?

I probably mostly agree with you on matters of religion. I just think you're needlessly a dick about it sometimes.

8/30/2013 6:11:36 PM

Quote :

"Why do American leaders who vow "never again" repeatedly fail to stop genocide?"

Because if you stop A from murdering B, then B will go on to murder A?

8/30/2013 7:51:05 PM

Obama says he will seek congressional approval. This will give him political cover regardless of the outcome.

8/31/2013 2:32:25 PM

That's an absolutely perfect political move, A+ trolling

8/31/2013 5:50:40 PM

Quote :

""It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.""

You're pulling this from a student handout (i.e., non-doctrinal source) from a third-party website. FM 27-10 doesn't prohibit its use, and I can pull up a number of current doctrinal sources that detail how best to employ white and red phosphorus offensively. Phosphorus isn't explicitly banned, or oftentimes even listed, in international treaties pertaining to chemical warfare. The only specific prohibition is its use in civilian-populated areas, which we abide by. But I can promise you that if I can pop a 3x3 'shake and bake' to get a secondary explosion off an IDF team sitting on a mountain top, we're gonna do it. Mostly because it is awesome.

As far as it being toxic - the gas emitted from the oxidation reaction is indeed toxic for inhalation. Nasty stuff, but highly inefficient as a inhalation agent. Nobody uses it for that purpose, especially since if you're close enough to breath it in, you're in far greater danger of a chunk of it burning a hole through your chest than you are of having to go to the hospital for breathing in noxious fumes. In other words, implying that it is a chemical agent in the sense of being poisonous is contrived.



[Edited on August 31, 2013 at 6:03 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2013 6:01:47 PM

^^ Totally agree. I don't think there's much downside to sitting on it a bit. And public opinion needs to figure out what the fuck it wants.

8/31/2013 6:16:31 PM

^^it is banned by treaty against use as a weapon

8/31/2013 6:25:09 PM

False.

8/31/2013 6:46:34 PM

Quote :

"And public opinion needs to figure out what the fuck it wants."

Public opinion is pretty clearly not in favor of actions in Syria.

8/31/2013 7:47:48 PM

^^ Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons outlaws the use of WP on civilians or on military targets located within a concentration of civilians. The US signed that treaty January 23, 2009.

8/31/2013 8:17:11 PM

I think Obama realized he was backed into a corner with his "red line" position and is an astute enough politician to realize that the people are not on his side. Congress can (hopefully) shoot down any attempt at intervention and Obama gets to save face. I'm fine with that if it means we don't get involved.

8/31/2013 11:31:57 PM

this is just more evidence that obama is a blow hard scumbag with no backbone. I don't think we should attack Syria, but it kills credibility to talk so hard about it and then defer to congress when you realize that the people aren't with you.

8/31/2013 11:38:35 PM

uh, he didn't get pushed into this position. this position was the result of a well calculated play. first he stated his intentions to judge public reaction. the public pushed back so he decided to go to congress. now the republicans, who can never ever agree with obama, will be the reason we can't go to war. now obama gets to keep his high horse position as the world guardian and blame the children dying on republicans. its A+ trolling.

8/31/2013 11:41:12 PM

uh, he put himself in this position with his undisciplined mouthing off about red line this, gas that, etc.

8/31/2013 11:46:57 PM

nope, that's wrong

8/31/2013 11:48:27 PM

you are a troll. it is exactly what happened.

8/31/2013 11:50:31 PM

Shake'n Bakes are fucking awesome. RP tends to work better than Wooly Pete though at least in my experience. It is or at least was authorized as long as you listed vehicles in the target description of your call for fire.

9/1/2013 1:59:18 AM

http://www.thecontroversialfiles.net/2013/08/a-grim-urgent-action-memorandum-issued.html
http://www.thecontroversialfiles.net/2013/07/russia-has-plans-to-bomb-qatar-and.html
http://www.thecontroversialfiles.net/2013/08/saudis-go-on-full-alert-as-putin-war.html

bahahaha

FB idiots

9/1/2013 4:35:44 AM

well that seems like a credible news site.

9/1/2013 9:12:50 AM

Of course Congress won't cut their vacation short to discuss an important matter such as going to war.

9/1/2013 10:11:28 AM

Surely Congress will OK it. As much as Republicans bitch about the president and Syria, you know that there are still a bunch of profiteering fear-mongers.

9/1/2013 10:48:09 AM

i would hope not. it's funny that it's the liberals who are warmongering now that their golden child is in office.

9/1/2013 11:52:18 AM

If congress says "no", do you honestly think we will do nothing?

9/1/2013 4:09:50 PM

Yeah, RP is better but we always had a harder time getting rounds. Just to clarify, RP/WP is an anti-material munitions. So you're supposed to use it against trucks, ammunition caches, uniform buttons, shoes, belt buckles, etc. If someone happens to be in/on/around these objects, well it sucks to suck.

But in all seriousness, dtownral, you are a fucking idiot. I want you to read what you posted, and focus on the keyword CIVILIAN.

[Edited on September 1, 2013 at 7:06 PM. Reason : .]

9/1/2013 7:01:28 PM

So Kerry says that US has evidence it was sarin that was used
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23918889

And he also says he is confident that the congress will approve military action because congressmen "will do what is right because they understand the stakes."

Syria's reaction to Obama deferring to congress:

Quote :

"Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad told the BBC that Mr Obama's decision to delay the strikes pending a vote in Congress was just "a political and media manoeuvre". Syrian President Bashar al-Assad remained defiant on Sunday, saying: "Syria... is capable of facing up to any external aggression just as it faces up to internal aggression every day, in the form of terrorist groups and those that support them.""

And the reaction of the Syrian opposition:

Quote :

"The opposition Syrian National Coalition (SNC) said President Obama's decision to delay any strikes in Syria was a "failure in leadership" and could "embolden" the forces of President Assad."

9/1/2013 11:49:31 PM

Well, now that we know from Iraq that military intervention is never about helping oppressed people despite claims from the US government of the opposite lets look at the possible motives for engagement in Syria:

-Blocking the Syria/Iran/Iraq Peace Pipeline?
-Installing permanent military presence/proximity to Iran?
-Military industrial complex power grab to counter the recent austerity measures targeting defense.

All roads lead to Iran. US doesnt like the coalition of ME states power forming behind Iran nor does it like the willingness of other countries to ignore sanctions that have been put in place to force Iran to cede ME control to the US. US will definitely do whatever they can do make sure that pipeline is NOT completed.

9/2/2013 12:45:19 PM

Quote :

"-Installing permanent military presence/proximity to Iran?"

That makes no sense. Syria is an ally of Iran, but doesn't share a border. We've already invaded most of the countries that do share a border with Iran and have military bases set up there.

9/2/2013 12:56:18 PM

I mean, there's an Iran angle where we don't want Assad to emerge victorious, and we like the idea of Tehran preoccupied with the Syria issue, but we're certainly not looking to invade the place as a staging ground for Iran. That's already been done much better elsewhere.

9/2/2013 2:54:27 PM

Well, Lindsey Grahamnesty made a reference to Iran on CNN just now as a reason that we need to act. war-mongering, yaaaaaaaaay

9/2/2013 3:25:52 PM

Quote :

"If congress says "no", do you honestly think we will do nothing?"

congress said no to libya and we still got involved

Quote :

"But in all seriousness, dtownral, you are a fucking idiot. I want you to read what you posted, and focus on the keyword CIVILIAN. "

go back and read the claim, they were examples of use in civilian areas; we are talking about civilians. idiot.

9/2/2013 3:55:20 PM

to be fair, you did say the following:

Quote :

"it is banned by treaty against use as a weapon"

nowhere is the word "civilian" used in that quote, and I don't see, at least on this page, anything to conclude that the conversation was solely centered around use in civilian areas. but, whatever

9/2/2013 4:03:54 PM

keep reading a few more posts

9/2/2013 4:21:13 PM

sure, you mentioned something that specifically deals with use in a civilian area, but that was after your claim that it was banned with no reference to civilians. And this was after Hawthorne specifically stated that its use was banned in civilian areas... so I'm not really sure what you're arguing about at this point...

9/2/2013 5:15:37 PM

Reaction of Mideast press to Obama deferring to congress... Shows how fractured the Arabs/Muslims are

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23921794

Quote :

"Commentary in pan-Arab, Saudi-owned daily Al-Hayat: "The timing is no longer important. What is more important now is that Barack Obama's blow to Bashar al-Assad will inevitably occur. It is a new Obama, whose tough face we have not seen since he was elected." Commentary in pan-Arab, Saudi-owned daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat: "No matter what Obama decides on the scope and nature of the strike, he will obviously remain a weak president even if he chooses war... Obama seems to be afraid of any consequences such a strike may entail. What he wants is a quick, limited and narrowly focused strike. He does not want to be dragged into a wider regional war." London-based pan-Arab newspaper Al-Arab al-Alamiyah: "Will the Obama administration make up its mind and realize that stability in the Middle East requires the removal of the Syrian regime? Otherwise, it will contribute once again to dispelling any hope of restoring some stability in the Middle East." Commentary in government-owned Syrian newspaper Al-Thawra: "Regardless of whether the [US] Congress gives the red light or the green light to an aggression, and of whether the prospects for war have been enhanced or reduced, by prevaricating or through implication President Obama yesterday announced the start of a historic US retreat." Commentary in government-owned Syrian newspaper Tishrin: "The USA is planning to attack a country in which chemical weapons have been used by terrorists, and the pretext of using these weapons will lead to war and aggression... The USA distorts facts and fabricates events to justify its wars and aggression." Editorial in conservative Iranian newspaper Siyasat-e Ruz: "Obama is using the red line of chemical weapons as a pretext... to go back on his pledges to American people and the world. Obama will emerge as the loser if he wages a war against Syria even if the USA achieves victory, because the world will become more familiar with his false humanitarian claims." Commentary in hardline Iranian newspaper Jomhuri-ye Eslami: "The USA has failed to build an international consensus for a military strike against Syria. The US is only beating the drums of war with the help of France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Although this war can be initiated by the warmongers in the White House, it certainly cannot be concluded by Washington." Editorial in Egypt's state-owned daily Al-Jumhuriyah: "The USA, which has killed, maimed and displaced millions of Arabs and Muslims in the Middle Eastern wars in order to steal oil and strengthen Israel, has no merciful heart to look at hundreds of Syrians who were allegedly killed with chemical weapons. The USA is not a messenger of God who will take revenge against the killers, as it claims. In actual fact, it uses fake pretexts to play its real role in destroying the Arab countries and their armies so that Israel will enjoy supremacy and security." Commentary in Egypt's pro-reform liberal daily Al-Shuruq al-Jadid: "The poor and children will bear the brunt of the new US adventure. Syria will become more divided, and new terrorist groups will spring up after Washington gives them justification to strike here and there. The innocent in the West will also pay the price as was the case on 11 September 2011." Editorial in Qatar's leading independent daily Al-Sharq: "Yesterday's announcement by US President Barack Obama that he decided to launch a military strike against the ruling regime in Syria is a step forward in terms of bringing Bashar al-Assad and his suppressive militias to account for genocide and crimes against humanity. However, this announcement came too late following more than two-and-a-half years of horrible massacres perpetrated against the Syrian people." Dubai-based newspaper Khaleej Times, part-owned by the UAE government: "If the US directly attacks Syria, the real cause will not be the recent chemical attacks... The Syrian conflict is a proxy war being waged against Iran by the United States, conservative Arab oil producers, and three former Mideast colonial powers, Britain, France and Turkey who are seeking to restore their domination in the region." Israeli centrist mass-circulation newspaper Yediot Aharonot: "Senior Israeli officials were stunned last night by US President Barack Obama's speech... Al-Assad is sitting rubbing his hands gleefully, and the Iranians are laughing all the way to the nuclear bomb, not to mention the fact that they have now given Al-Assad time to set up his defences." Website of liberal Turkish daily Taraf: "The huge gap between the envisaged strategy and the targeted outcome should be reason enough to oppose this intervention. This is an inconsistent strategy even with a sound mind.""

9/2/2013 10:53:40 PM

[Edited on September 2, 2013 at 11:24 PM. Reason : double post]

9/2/2013 11:23:22 PM

We have been concerned about the chemical weapons so far, which is a very real threat that has went through some real violations and now need real consequences.

So I see Great Britain, France, U.S., Russia, etc... but I don't see the Middle East policing their own region... Why is there an expectation for us to clean this mess up?

We should be concerned with two problems... chemical weapons, and the man who holds the trigger.

9/2/2013 11:24:11 PM

What you guys seem to fail to realize here is that wars cost money and we just finished one, and winding down the second, in the middle of Libya, and now you guys are ready to get into this one.

Money is so tight right now. We can't throw ourselves responsibly into another fight if we don't have the resources to sustain our presence. So what do we do at that point?

Whatever we can is the answer. And what we can provide right now is a limited role with air superiority. We have allies and partners, and we're going to need their help.

The President is the Commander-in-Chief, and he doesn't need Congress's authorization because it's inherent in his command of the military. However, he does seek their approval because if he needs more resources (or money), he's going to want that support later.

That money has to come from somewhere and that's usually Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer.

9/2/2013 11:34:28 PM

Quote :

"Whatever we can is the answer. And what we can provide right now is a limited role with air superiority. We have allies and partners, and we're going to need their help."

When have our partners ever footed the majority of the bill for an action like this? Even when it's spear headed by other allies, it comes down to the US because the US has the greatest strike capabilities. When you're doing a limited action you'll always opt to use the tech that has the best chance of hitting the target and the least chance of getting a pilot killed. That makes it fall on the US. Every time.

9/3/2013 9:04:16 AM

I think the GOP is going to try and tie military budget increases to any sort of strike authorization. I've read and heard quotes from more than one of them saying that Obama has cut the military budget too much and that in order for us to "safely" handle a potential escalation, the budget needs to be increased. So basically, politics as usual on this one.

9/3/2013 11:29:56 AM

Quote :

"If WP or depleted uranium are what you consider "chemical weapons" then all incendiaries should be considered also. Hell, lead is technically a chemical too, right? You're right though, depleted uranium slugs are as deadly as sarin and nerve gas. I mean, it has the word uranium right ther"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Health_considerations



[Edited on September 3, 2013 at 11:54 AM. Reason : .]

9/3/2013 11:48:03 AM

^http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html

9/3/2013 3:51:32 PM

Will they welcome our missiles as liberators though?

9/3/2013 4:27:19 PM

Pretty good article on what the administration probably wants to get out of this.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324202304579051280341316034

Quote :

"The White House wants to strengthen the opposition but doesn't want it to prevail, according to people who attended closed-door briefings by top administration officials over the past week. The administration doesn't want U.S. airstrikes, for example, tipping the balance of the conflict because it fears Islamists will fill the void if the Assad regime falls, according to briefing participants, which included lawmakers and their aides."

Quote :

"Some congressional officials said they were concerned the administration was edging closer to an approach privately advocated by Israel. Israeli officials have told their American counterparts they would be happy to see its enemies Iran, the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah and al Qaeda militants fight until they are weakened, giving moderate rebel forces a chance to play a bigger role in Syria's future."

It's been echoed a bunch of times, but it's in our best interest to allow the main actors involved to just keep killing each other.

[Edited on September 3, 2013 at 4:43 PM. Reason : :]

9/3/2013 4:38:01 PM

Quote :

"Many rebel commanders say the aim of U.S. policy in Syria appears to be a prolonged stalemate that would buy the U.S. and its allies more time to empower moderates and choose whom to support."

"Prolonged stalemate" is a much nicer phrase than "perpetual war".

Quote :

"It's been echoed a bunch of times, but it's in our best interest to allow the main actors involved to just keep killing other. "

Which also involves 10-100s of thousands of civilian deaths and millions of displaced persons. And who do you mean by "our"?

[Edited on September 3, 2013 at 4:47 PM. Reason : .]

9/3/2013 4:43:03 PM

Our = US's best interests. I'm just being as pragmatic as possible here, with respect to the realities of the situation. Strike or no strike, this civil war isn't going to end peacefully. It's a zero sum game for Assad, losing means hanging from the end of a rope or worse. Both sides are going to fight to the last man, and civilians will continue being caught in the middle. No matter what anyone does.

[Edited on September 3, 2013 at 4:55 PM. Reason : :]

9/3/2013 4:55:03 PM

^^ Well no, those aren't the same things, particularly in the context of the very passage you quoted.

The idea of a prolonged stalemate is that it allows for holding out for better opportunities, not just conceding that it will be a grinder forever.

9/3/2013 7:19:07 PM

Quote :

"What you guys seem to fail to realize here is that wars cost money"

Yeah but who does the government pay the cost to?

Wars cost money (for all)
Wars make money (for some)

http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/03/syrian-ambassador-bashar-jaafari-change-yes-we-can/?hpt=hp_t1

everytime the man starts getting into the facts, she cuts him off. He referred to the media as a weapon of mass destruction.

9/3/2013 10:06:40 PM

John Stewart nails it upon his return:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErGmEi5_t6M

9/4/2013 9:12:29 AM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/

9/4/2013 3:54:59 PM