Will the US attack Syria?

[RolandtheHeadless]

As an American, I don't know what to believe about Syria. Many sources say that the rebels are affiliated with terrorist groups, and that the US can't tell the difference between the good rebels and the bad ones.

And now some people are saying that the rebels themselves released the gas on innocent people just to convince the US to join the fight against Assad. I don't know what to believe.

Obama has deferred to Congress to decide whether the US will pursue action against Assad. But instead of lobbying Congress fiercely, as presidents are wont to do when they have something important for Congress to vote on, Obama is gallivanting around Europe. Which makes me wonder how seriously Obama believes that the US will be attacking Syria.

 

[Hezam]

As an American ? why did you involve all american with your confusion ?
Unbelievable !!!

 

[Mark of Zorro]

As an American ? why did you involve all american with your confusion ?
Unbelievable !!!

I am not quite sure what you want to say Hezam. I was going to say that even though the language of the title is common, I don't appreciate the implication that "America" will attack Syria. It won't be so. It will be the U.S. government and military attacking the Assad government and military. The people, the civilians, who really are the country, won't be fighting eachother, and indeed, don't want to.

If the U.S. government tells the military to shoot some missiles into Syria, and that is all that is likely to happen, all it will mean is some profits for U.S. makers of missiles, and indeed, I am inclined to believe that that is the ENTIRE point of doing it two years into this mess.

The gas attacks have "false flag" written all over them. Whoever did it certainly does deserve to be pounded into the dirt. But again, let us be clear of exactly who. Its not all the people fighting on the same side, just like I am not responsible for predator drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen just for being American, even if I got drafted into the military. Oh no. Its only a handful of people responsible for the gas attacks in any case, and killing a whole bunch of other people with cruise missiles is not going to solve a damned thing....well, except for some stock holders in arms manufacturing getting a new BMW this year....****** monsters.

The handful of people behind the gas attacks deserve to die just as slowly and painfully as humanly possible. But I don't know exactly who they are. Who does? Not knowing, damned if I am going to support anything except a U.N. peacekeeping mission.

 

[Hezam]

Starting with Who attacked people with Gas...
We have an Army with Rockets, Chemichal weapons, Aircraft, Tanks, Heavy weapons, Bases, Resources, supporters, In the other side we have another army with RPG, Handmade bombs, light weapons and [ Allahu Akbar ] <-- weapon ?
The first Army killed over 100.000 civilian, destroyed the whole country, forced more than 5 million persons to leave their homes and nation.

So the question is STILL " Who did it ? "

 

[Grandpa Frank]

I wonder ??

Has anyone thought that the U.N. / world powers work together to come up with a plan to destroy the chemical and biological weapons not just in the Mideast but all over the world. Seems if everyone is in agreement that they should not be used that people could come up with a plan to destroy them with some type of oversite to keep it fair and honest.

Uncle Frank

:?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Has anyone thought that the U.N. / world powers work together to come up with a plan to destroy the chemical and biological weapons not just in the Mideast but all over the world. Seems if everyone is in agreement that they should not be used that people could come up with a plan to destroy them with some type of oversite to keep it fair and honest.

Uncle Frank

:?

Ah, the big problem is the major players refuse to give up their stockpiles, and it cascades down from there. Can't even get America to give up landmines.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Starting with Who attacked people with Gas...
We have an Army with Rockets, Chemichal weapons, Aircraft, Tanks, Heavy weapons, Bases, Resources, supporters, In the other side we have another army with RPG, Handmade bombs, light weapons and [ Allahu Akbar ] <-- weapon ?
The first Army killed over 100.000 civilian, destroyed the whole country, forced more than 5 million persons to leave their homes and nation.

So the question is STILL " Who did it ? "

Correct me if I am wrong, but I heard that the rebels have taken major cities before and then lost them again. During that time I am sure its possible they too could have gotten their hands on some of Assad's chemical weapons. I think it is very important, when listing what weapons they have available, to include the fact that the rebels have had a lot of chances to get a lot of Assad's weapons.

Not to say they know how to use them all. If they got one of Assad's attack heli's, not much good without a pilot and a crew to maintain it, not to mention having armaments available. In fact, I can even imagine the rebels getting some chemical weapons, taking them to population centers, fiddling with the darn things to see how they work and what they are, and setting them off in a giant OOPS!

 

[SomeCallMeChris]

The rebels could have gotten their hands on chemical weapons by stealing them from the regime, it's true. However, deploying Sarin gas requires special equipment that requires special training and special protective gear.

It's extremely unlikely that the rebels deployed Sarin gas in a controlled way. It's further unlikely that they were 'fiddling' with captured Sarin gas during active hostilities (and we know from multiple sources that there was active conventional fighting at the time of the Sarin deployment that kicked off the latest crisis.)

It would be possible for Sarin gas containers in the hands of either the rebels or the regime to be accidentally destroyed by the other side, but that would be unlikely to have widespread civilian casualties. The gas in a case like that would have only damaged a narrow path following the prevailing wind until it was too dilute to be effective.

I believe there are also Obama administration claims that they intercepted communications from regime forces worrying if the UN inspectors might find something, which implies that they knew there was something to find that they may not have hidden well enough.

I really don't doubt (from what I've heard in NPR and BBC coverage) that the regime is the guilty party. I do have my doubts as to what good a 'no boots on the ground' military strike is going to do for anyone. However, I think it's very likely that U.S. forces will attack Syria in the next few months. Once engaged, it will be difficult to keep the 'no boots on the ground' pledge.

Oddly enough, if the U.S. does perform only air attacks and distance bombardment and keep the 'no boots on the ground' pledge, it's possibly helping Al Qaeda (or a splinter group descended from it, anyway) take control of Syria, as Al Qaeda affiliated groups are becoming prominent in the rebel forces.

 

[Hezam]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I heard that the rebels have taken major cities before and then lost them again. During that time I am sure its possible they too could have gotten their hands on some of Assad's chemical weapons. I think it is very important, when listing what weapons they have available, to include the fact that the rebels have had a lot of chances to get a lot of Assad's weapons.

Not to say they know how to use them all. If they got one of Assad's attack heli's, not much good without a pilot and a crew to maintain it, not to mention having armaments available. In fact, I can even imagine the rebels getting some chemical weapons, taking them to population centers, fiddling with the darn things to see how they work and what they are, and setting them off in a giant OOPS!

The Gas was launched by 15 to 20 ballistic rockets, It was a revenge for targeting the Assad's escort few days before the Gas attack.
May i ask everyone, Where do you get your informations about Syria ?

i hope you visit the most reliable Arabic source for news while reading news from your local news source:
Al Jazeera English - Live US, Europe, Middle East, Asia, Sports, Weather & Business News

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

I don't know what to make of the situation in Syria. I feel very bad for the people who live there, as no one wants to live under a state of civil war. I think if I lived there, I would probably just want the fighting to stop and be left alone by whomever assumes power.

As an outsider, all I can really say is that the use of chemical weapons is reprehensible. I personally think there should be some sort of response to the perpetrators. However, from a geopolitical view, if the Assad regime falls, there is little reason to hope that a more stable government would replace it anytime soon.

But my real question is, what about the countries in closer proximity to Syria? If they believe that the use of chemical weapons is wrong, why do we not ask what they think should be done? I know that power is more concentrated in Europe and the United States, but I can never understand why we seem to pay so little attention to what local players in the region think should be done.

 

[SomeCallMeChris]

But my real question is, what about the countries in closer proximity to Syria? If they believe that the use of chemical weapons is wrong, why do we not ask what they think should be done? I know that power is more concentrated in Europe and the United States, but I can never understand why we seem to pay so little attention to what local players in the region think should be done.

The Saudis openly want the U.S. to intervene (and I think it's implied they will provide forces), the Egyptions don't want anyone to intervene especially not the U.S., the Jordanians really want the U.S. to intervene but have to be cautious about saying so because they border on Syria. Also because they border on Syria, they have to say that they have no intention of committing any military force to actions against Syria.
Iran says they don't want the U.S. to intervene, but the more it looks like it will happen the less vocal they are - it was probably just a reflexive anti-U.S. position but they don't care enough to put anything on the line over it.

I'm not really sure about other countries, those are the key players I heard discussed in some depth, but, in any case, the White House at least is very much in diplomatic talks with regional players. The recent strong interest in taking action is probably due to diplomatic efforts -of- Middle Eastern countries to encourage Obama to take a stronger stance. There's really no vested interest for the U.S. to be getting involved in Syria, and if it was for humanitarian reasons action should have been taken long ago.

Perhaps a lot of mainstream television reporting doesn't go into detail about these things, but at least in diplomatic talks the regional players are absolutely key to White House thinking. It is true that Obama's speeches don't emphasize that, which is political. There are many voters who strongly feel that the U.S. should always do what's good for the U.S. and never be told what to do by other countries or need to ask permission from other countries. This feeling is totally unrealistic, of course, but Obama's public overtures to congress have to be sensitive to the fact. Nobody will support the proposal if it would cost them the next election.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

The Gas was launched by 15 to 20 ballistic rockets, It was a revenge for targeting the Assad's escort few days before the Gas attack.

Thank you Hezam. Although your link did not lead me directly to the information about delivery, I found this at wiki:

2013 Ghouta attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Delivery method

Abu Omar of the Free Syrian Army stated to The Guardian that the rockets involved in the attack were unusual because "you could hear the sound of the rocket in the air but you could not hear any sound of explosion" and no obvious damage to buildings occurred.[62] Human Rights Watch's witnesses reported "symptoms and delivery methods consistent with the use of chemical nerve agents."[19]

Activists and local residents contacted by The Guardian said that "the remains of 20 rockets [thought to have been carrying neurotoxic gas were] found in the affected areas. Many [remained] mostly intact, suggesting that they did not detonate on impact and potentially dispersed gas before hitting the ground."[67]

According to CBS News, chemical and biological weapons experts have been relatively consistent in their analysis, saying only a military force with access to and knowledge of missile delivery systems and the sarin gas suspected in Ghouta could have carried out an attack capable of killing hundreds of people. Additionally British and U.S. officials stated that there is no credible evidence that any opposition group to conduct a chemical weapons attack on this scale.[68][69]

May i ask everyone, Where do you get your informations about Syria ?

In my case probably mostly AP and Yahoo.

 

[Abdur Rahman]

U.S and Russia want Assad to stay and kill more Syrians

 

[Hezam]

Their plan is Greater Iran from Afghanistan to Lebanon.
This is what they want, but as long as Muslims do Jihad their plans will not succeed.