22 Aug

It’s going from bad to worse in Syria. Yesterday several reports have it that the Assad regime has in fact crossed the line and used chemical weapons on it’s people, children even, which is beyond the pale.  So now what? I guess we find out what Obama is made of considering his “line in the sand” statement on more than one occasion:

 “I have made clear that the use of chemical weapons is a game changer.” Obama: “As president of the United States, I don’t bluff.”

To be fair, Obama is not the only world leader to make this declaration, so it will be interesting to see what transpires. Either the civilized world is going to stand up to the Assad regime, and Iran by extension, or not.

Equally troubling is what is going on in Egypt, and reports are that just yesterday Lebanon lobbed more shells into Israel and Netanyahu is not happy. Remember the 2009 Cairo speech Obama delivered? Seems like a million years ago, and don’t you wish we could go back to the days before that speech now? I think it’s become very apparent that the ME policies of the Obama administration have not worked out real well, and this is a poor reflection on Hillary Clinton and may haunt her in 2016 if she chooses to run.


Posted by on August 22, 2013 in Middle East


Tags: ,

32 responses to “Syria

  1. GMB

    August 22, 2013 at 2:23 pm

    un security council calls emergency meeting. sammy powers skips out and sends a deputy. froggys demand something be done militarily but do you see any froggy troops rushing in?

    Didn’t think so.

    The french will fight, to the last drop of someone else blood. Usually that someone else will speak English.

  2. kmg

    August 22, 2013 at 2:38 pm

    I didn’t want anything to with the goat screw in Syria, but if Syria has used WMD, fuck it. Launch a full-scale air and missile attack on all WMD storage and launch facilities, then get the fuck out. No boots on the ground, period.

    • bardolf2

      August 22, 2013 at 4:12 pm

      Suppose that instead of the claimed chemical weapons Syria had used a group of very quick, very accurate snipers to kill exactly the same number of people (children included of course) with the same ease as accomplished by the chemical weapons. Do you say stay out of Syria or launch a full-scale attack on the snipers?

      • kmg

        August 22, 2013 at 6:02 pm

        Stay out. Rifles against rifles is between them. Once the WMD is destroyed, let them go back at each other.

        I agree with cluster in so far as there are no good sides to choose in Syria. On one side you have a despotic regime and on the other you have Islamic radicals. Neither side has any interest in being any kind of friend to the US. If we jump in with the rebels and they win, they will turn on us just as soon as they’ve milked us for as much financial aid as they can get.

      • bardolf2

        August 22, 2013 at 6:59 pm

        So US involvement isn’t contingent on how many people are killed, just if they are killed in a certain manner which offends our sensibilities? Snipers against rock throwers would be okay, but the equivalent number of casualties caused by chemical weapons isn’t okay.

        I don’t have a good idea when the US should intervene in Syria, but I’ve always thought it somewhat arbitrary that the number of casualties isn’t the trigger for such an intervention but only the method of the casualties. I’m partial to the idea that there ain’t no good way to die.

      • kmg

        August 22, 2013 at 7:22 pm

        No, there is no good way to die, but chemical, neurological, and biological weapons are a particularly horrible way for it to happen. The difference, for me, between WMD and conventional weapons is the potential for the effects to spread past the borders or for the weapons themselves to cross the borders. Destroy the WMD and let everyone club each other to death. Then we’ll deal with whoever is left standing.

  3. Cluster

    August 22, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    There are no good sides to choose from in this battle, or any battle in the ME for that matter. It’s an absolute shame how those people (and I blame the men of course) treat each other. They are all barbaric, and the women and children suffer the most. But there is nothing we can do. We have tried everything, diplomacy, boots on the ground, drone strikes, nation building, etc.. There is nothing left to do, so in my opinion, our best course of action is to tap into our own domestic oil reserves, to completely divest ourselves from theirs, and of which are substantial enough to get us through the next 50 – 100 years until we ultimately find that mass produceable green energy alternative.

    Or maybe we should just arm them all to the teeth and let them take each other out. Problem solved.

    • meursault1942

      August 23, 2013 at 9:58 am

      “There are no good sides to choose from in this battle, or any battle in the ME for that matter.”

      Yeah, that’s about where I am with it. Last week, in response to one of GMB’s questions, I said that our involvement in Africa always seems to make things worse. I’m putting the ME in that category as well. No matter what we do, it just seems to be wrong. But of course, doing nothing seems wrong as well. It’s just a horrifying and tragic situation all around, and it’s made all the more horrifying and tragic that there’s nothing anybody can do about it.

  4. GMB

    August 22, 2013 at 7:47 pm

    “There are no good sides to choose from in this battle,”

    Let’s ask the Christians that live in Syria this question. I’ll bet we will get a different answer.

    On one hand you have the Assadites who at least allow the Christians to live in peace. On the other hand we have alqueada on the muslim brotherhood. Whats going on in Egypt should tell what the fate of the Christians in Syria will be.

    Responsibility to protect? Don’t make me puke.

  5. GMB

    August 22, 2013 at 8:05 pm

    “I don’t have a good idea when the US should intervene in Syria,”

    Other that giving arms to targeted minorities, I have an answer for this question.


    Let them all kill each other to their little hearts content.

  6. Cluster

    August 23, 2013 at 4:38 am

    Here’s a question I think everyone is ignoring – where did Syria get the WMD’s?

    • kmg

      August 23, 2013 at 4:41 am

      Syria has had WMDs for decades. They didn’t get them from Iraq.

      • Cluster

        August 23, 2013 at 4:58 am

        And you know that how?

      • GMB

        August 23, 2013 at 5:10 am

        “And you know that how?”

        Because he said so.

        All those truck convoys that went from Iraq to Syria the two days before the invasion were carrying vegetables and eggs.

        Oh and a couple of hogs heads of goat cheese..

      • kmg

        August 23, 2013 at 6:10 am

        Since you obviously traveled with the alleged trucks, why don’t you tell us what was in them? Syria, along with multiple other countries have had chemical, biological, and neurological weapons for decades. They’ve been around since WWI and aren’t that hard to make. Hell, it isn’t rocket science (BTW, Syria knows how to build rockets).

        Trying to tie the Syrian debacle to the specious claims that Iraq transferred nuclear materials to Syria is some pretty weak sauce, since we aren’t even talking about nuclear weapons.

      • Cluster

        August 23, 2013 at 6:28 am

        Syria, along with multiple other countries have had chemical, biological, and neurological weapons for decades.

        But Iraq NEVER had them. The were one of the only countries to be clean right? Even though, Saddam did use chemical weapons against the Kurds.

        Look KMG, we’re just trying to clear up all the fuss liberals raised back in 2004. The contention was back then, that Iraq DID NOT have WMD’s, and that WAS the argument – not nuclear weapons.

      • kmg

        August 23, 2013 at 6:42 am

        No one ever claimed that Iraq never had chemical, biological, or neurological weapons. They had them during the first Gulf war. After that war, they lost access to the precursor needed to make most of them. The only CBN weapons found in OIF were chemicals that had stored in warheads since the ’90s and had deteriorated so badly they were basically benign.

        Now we’re just rehashing your failed arguments from 2004. In 2002, Iraq did not have WMDs that could be used as weapons and the Bush administration did try to sell the idea that Iraq had nuclear weapons. No active CBN weapons have been found since we invaded and there is no evidence that anything was transferred to Syria. Remember Rice’s famous “mushroom cloud” warning? Only one type of weapon creates a mushroom cloud and it ain’t nerve gas.

        If you want to go back and replay this game, you can play with yourself.

      • Cluster

        August 23, 2013 at 6:49 am

        Just trying to keep it straight here KMG. The argument in 2004 was WMD’s, which is all encompassing of nuclear arsenal and chemical weapons, of which you just stated were possessed by “multiple countries” and “easy to make”. And back then liberals were up in arms (no pun intended) over the audacity that Bush, and a myriad of other countries including France, thought Iraq had WMD’s, but now you are once again claiming that at that time, there were no such WMD’s. You understand my confusion right?

        I wish I had that crystal ball that liberals have.

      • ricorun

        August 23, 2013 at 7:00 am

        I bet the Israelis know what was in those trucks.

        That said, even if there were chemical weapons in them they wouldn’t be much good anymore.

      • GMB

        August 23, 2013 at 7:26 am

        Wouldn’t be any good? Are you sure about that?

  7. GMB

    August 23, 2013 at 6:46 am

    First off, a little minor correction here. It is NBC. Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. The neurological weapons you refer to fall under the chemical category. Saran is a type of chemical weapon that affects the central nervous system. Ricin would be a biological agent that affects the body cells.

    As far as Syria and it’s chemical weapons, read this, put two and two together, then tell us all that it is just a coincidence.

    • kmg

      August 23, 2013 at 7:20 am

      My bad. NBC was replaced by CBRN, now CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and high- yield Explosives). I had combined the radiological and nuclear and thought neurological was its own category.

      Sarin is popular among countries that produce chemical weapons because its pretty simple to make. When I put two and two together, I come to the conclusion that the shelf life is too short for the gas to have come from Iraq.

      • GMB

        August 23, 2013 at 7:37 am

        Since you are good at finding things.

        Highly pure (rectified, without traces of moisture, HF and so on) GB, if stored below 50°C, in teflon-lined shells, has a typical shelf life of up to 5 years, so was considered stable enough for stockpile-shell-filling. If combined with stabilizers (pyridine, triisopropylamine, chlorobenzene), its stability is even higher, so that stabilised-GB-filled shells were considered deployable up to 10 years, if properly stored (i.e., cool, in first place). However, binary GB is a far better (technically speaking) solution for stability and deployability of GB.– 23:40, 28 October 2007

        I am not saying what the Syrians used directly came from Iraq. What I am saying is that the equipment and know how did. That the same formula was used and the same effects happened.

        So either sadam didnt have any wmd’s or sadam did have wmd’s but they would not be any good any more.


      • kmg

        August 23, 2013 at 9:09 am

        Okay, this will be my last comment on this topic. The WMD found in Iraq were in shells dating back to the ’80s and early ’90s. After Desert Storm, they were sealed by the UN and not accesses until OIF. At that point, The storage sites were broken into and the shells removed. The radiological material was yellow cake, which is not suitable for weapons, was known by the UN, and was secured at storage sites. When I and others at the time said Iraq did not have WMDs, it was in the context of active stockpiles and delivery systems. The chemical weapons he did have were known and useless.

        Syria has been developing chemical weapons since the ’70s ( They did not need, nor, I suspect, particularly want anything from Iraq. Syria was not under the same restrictions that Iraq had been under for the 10 years prior to OIF.

        So, Saddam did not have active WMDs. Saddam did have old, ineffective chemical weapons that were known and under seal. There is no evidence other than pure speculation that anything was transferred to Syria.


      • mitchethekid

        August 23, 2013 at 11:34 am


    • kmg

      August 23, 2013 at 7:28 am

      Yep, they found old, degraded weapons that had no military use anymore. No active weapons have found. From the DoD press release:

      The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

      Your second and third links are from FrontPage and contains nothing new except speculation from Miniter’s book and the NY Post is the same story. The story is the same information.

      I’m not going to rehash these old arguments. Its a waste of time.

  8. bardolf2

    August 27, 2013 at 5:27 pm

    I agree with Pat Buchanan’s assessment on the Syrian situation.

    The questions to which Congress needs answers:

    Do we have incontrovertible proof that Bashar Assad ordered chemical weapons be used on his own people? And if he did not, who did?
    What kind of reprisals might we expect if we launch cruise missiles at Syria, which is allied with Hezbollah and Iran?
    If we attack, and Syria or its allies attack U.S. military or diplomatic missions in the Middle East or here in the United States, are we prepared for the wider war we will have started?
    Assuming Syria responds with a counterstrike, how far are we prepared to go up the escalator to regional war? If we intervene, are we prepared for the possible defeat of the side we have chosen, which would then be seen as a strategic defeat for the United States?
    If stung and bleeding from retaliation, are we prepared to go all the way, boots on the ground, to bring down Assad? Are we prepared to occupy Syria to prevent its falling to the Al-Nusra Front, which it may if Assad falls and we do not intervene?
    The basic question that needs to be asked about this horrific attack on civilians, which appears to be gas related, is: Cui bono?

    The GOP should stop President Noble Peace Prize from getting the US involved in another action with only costs to the US and no benefits.

    • GMB

      August 28, 2013 at 1:03 am

      “The GOP should stop President Noble Peace Prize”

      Please go to the nearest mirror. Now start and keep saying that and see long it takes before you start laughing.

      • Cluster

        August 28, 2013 at 5:15 am

        President Nobel Peace Price!
        Love it!

    • bardolf2

      August 28, 2013 at 7:35 am

      Looky, looky, looky. It was the rebels who used sarin nerve gas and not Assad. NOW CAN THE GOP STOP PRESIDENT NOBEL PEACE PRIZE?

%d bloggers like this: