No doubt the same rebels Obama's been supplying with weapons and money since March 2013. Whatta helluva mess this thing has turned out to be. Sure would feel better if we had a real leader in the WH. This is no job for a trainee. Read more here: Russia gave UN 100-page report in July blaming Syrian rebels for Aleppo sarin attack | McClatchy 100-page report. Sure hope Obama's gotta copy with him so ValJar can read it to him during the plane ride home. What do you think, folks? Can the Ruskies be trusted? Normally I wouldn't care what they think... but in this case, we have no proof they're wrong. How can we risk choosing sides???
Since when did conservatives start regarding Russia as a reliable source on *anything*? I swear.... if it contradicts or appears to harm Obama, conservatives will embrace it, even if it comes from North Korea or a UFO cult.
The 100 page report was mostly complicated chemical analysis determining the grade of manufacture of the sarin (the called it a "cottage facility" grade). Having setup Syria's advanced chemical weapons facilities... they are real labs, creating real chems. This is science. It was very elaborate, including methodology etcetera. Others have the same samples. It is science. Nobody has refuted anything. It is evidence. It is the sort of thing WE are supposed to be providing to make the case. Not... "intelligence suggests".
It's enough to cast a shadow on our decision. May be a moot point since I read earlier the House may not be playing along. Then it will all be up to Barack, won't it? <scary thought>
Maggot government cannot protect it's citizens from swarms of illegal aliens. Take Syria and shove it!
I wouldn't trust the Russians at all on this... or anything actually. I can't think of a situation in which they've been square with us. This whole "the rebels did it" is starting to have the whiff of a conspiracy theory to me.
Conspiracy theory? Not necessarily, they had the means to acquire said weapons(in fact including a recent report that the Saudis gave them said weapons). If the Russian Report is credible, it's all the more probable that they could have been responsible for Damascus as well.
The fact of the matter is that we, the United States, have supported and even supplied other governments with chemical weapons. This is definitely not the reason there's a push to shove our dicks in other people's faces. Whatever the reason is, it's definitely not what's being reported by mainstream.
I expect this to narrowly pass. At this point everything has been so (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up we risk more not lobbing a few cruise missiles seems to be the dominant opinion. I really hope our representatives would try this once to represent us... but have little faith in that. Here are the people you (supporters of attacks... not SMW) want to kill. I would actually like you to watch these videos. (Such great thanks to Jeremy Bowen for his UNBIASED on site reporting from both sides. He deserves every journalistic award ever.) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22870997 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23905761 Here they are being human shields to deter US bombing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23966147 Now... I will spare you the videos of the rebel atrocities... I don't think you need to get AIDS to know it is bad... and I don't expect you need to see a rebel commander cannibalizing a soldier to know it either. Going forward... who would you like to negotiate the future of Syria with? Please do not respond without watching at LEAST the first two videos. They are only a couple of minutes.
Oh I agree... but the whole Assad, who is winning, using chemical weapons a few miles from UN chemical weapons inspectors whiffs of CT as well. This is why I want science... not "we think". Russians provided science that is as yet, without challenge. That is what I want the US to produce. Science.
First thing that should happen, is John Kerry should resign, and go back to managing the wife's ketchup factory, where he should have been employed, instead of being chosen as Secretary of State. On second thought, I kind of like Heinz catsup, and I am sure Kerry would manage to f that up too. So as an alternate suggestion, go back to surfing and stay the f out of politics, world affairs, and Washington D.C. altogether. Go hunting with Dick Cheney or something. Maybe hang out with the other looney tune, John McCain and share exaggerated stories of how both of you are war heroes for gunning down civilians in Vietnam.
If someone brings some hard evidence (not Russian supplied) that the rebels did it, then I'm willing to listen. But at this point the US and French intelligence seems to indicate it's Assad, not the rebels. To me, it actually doesn't change the calculus that much. Syria didn't sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, so they are not violating "international law" if they did use them. Plus, both sides are enemies of the US. Assad is a state sponsor of terrorism, and the Islamist rebels, if they take power, will also likely be state sponsors of terrorism. This is the Iran-Iraq war all over again and as far as US national security is concerned, it's better if they keep fighting.
After Iraq, I too am heavily skeptical of U.S. "intelligence" and we saw how ingenious the president was "Well, I could(and probably would) go to war without you guys, but vote on it anyway." A complete slap in the face to the constitution, to the founders and to this country. Where we agree is that both will probably continue to sponsor state terrorism, and that the best outcome is the destruction of both groups. If it were me, I'd diplomatically negotiate with the Russians on a transition, assuring them safety of the Mediterranean Sea in exchange for the assurance of U.S/World interests(IE: Safety and control of Chemical Weapons) We've already destroyed at least 90% of our chemical stock so asking for assurances in this manner is only fair.
There is no one in this thing on either side that I trust any further than I could throw Jupiter. Putin, the ex KGB head is by nature duplicitous, there are historically never any good choices in the Middle East only less bad ones and alot of times it's damned hard to tell the difference between them. On top of that the history of Islam is that it's allies are often only sightly less endangered than it's enemies. Hell five of the first six Imams were murdered by other Muslims.
after Iraq, we need to be absolutely sure before we attack, this is why it's good to have congress debate the issue
Yes... I know... and their report was based only on science. The US has no such scientific support of their position, and have not refuted the Russian report... nor has anyone else. At best excuses have been given to suggest that the age of the chemical agent could account for its "dirtyness". I demand science of this administration... not "chatter" or "we think".
Science is still not concrete proof, ask any right-winger about global warming and climate change. Plus, let's keep in mind here that we have no idea how the Russians were able to carry out their investigation and obtain samples from Khan Al-Assal, and with the fact that this investigation was carried out on request from the Al-Assad regime, means that this report should be taken with a tonne of salt grains. It's about the same as the U.S.'s evidence, both are very questionable and shaky at best.
Put another way governments can manufacture 'science' as easily as anything else as the overblown hype concerning global warming fully demostrates.
