Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

[KevinNYC]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/oba...-option,33641/

[B-hoop]

France is for it and has said they will offer military support. The 22 nation Arab League is for it. Even the UK's vote against it, was discussed in the House of Commons was framed as let's wait to see what the UN testing show. Turkey is for it. It's universal support, but it's not just Israel. But the good news it we can eat French fries again.

As to the comment earlier that the UN voted it down....I don't think the UN has taken any vote, it just that Russia which has close ties to Syria for decades make it a sure thing they would veto any Security Council resolution.

Arab's dont count since they have been supporting the rebels. No country with clout supports it, France's president doesnt have the nation's support behind his words check this article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97U05120130831

As i said, no one will support an attack before the UN has declared what they found.

[browntown]

This is such a messed up situation. A part of me agrees with both sides. Knowing a ton of Syrians I might be headed towards the direction of getting rid Assad, would be a good thing.

[gigantes]

They attacked Lebanon 2006 when I was there on vacation.

isn't lebanon somewhat disputed land for them, tho? like... a great deal of judaic history involved with it?

not saying that's the *most* relevant thing anymore, but syria is much larger, ranges much further in distance, and israel has no sense of 'say'.

also... i would think that you can't go on pissing off your neighbors indefinitely. for all we know, lebanon was their last chance to be egregious... their last strike, if you will. next time who knows if OPEC doesn't punish us directly for our pet taking a crap on an arabic neighbor's lawn?

do we really want to risk that sort of thing so that we'll have 'no' involvement, even though in reality we will have involvement...?

[RidonKs]

Let me ask you, if it's proven to your satisfaction that Assad did order this chemical attack on civiliains, what should be the response of the US/international community.

the response should be the exact same as it should have been three months ago before the crisis was smeared all over the international media.

there's a strange divide i find in arguments that favour a retaliation against this particular atrocity. obviously the very reason we're even talking about it with one another, along with so much of the rest of the world, is concern for suffering syrian people. which is something 99% of people who have any clue whats going on certainly share.

but the justification for a specifically military response jumps ship from that to this carrot and stick approach to banned weapons use... basically, we teach these guys a lesson and anybody else who even thinks the thought will learn.

i can't talk much about that because i don't know much, but frankly, it strikes me as an overly simplistic analysis of how politics actually work on the large scale right down to individual countries. i'm skeptical basically.

but if we stick with an overriding principle to guide our actions, namely the wellbeing of syrians, there is an obvious way forward. the geneva negotiations that were going to start a few months ago. there are barriers of course. the united states refuses to allow iran a seat at the table, which is patently absurd. the opposition leadership, if you can even call it that, is fragmented in a hundred different ways... and i think consists of like 130 different people, some three quarters of whom are puppets acting in the interests of their regional paymasters. it will be difficult for that "side" to offer a coherent position. and then there's the fact that the regime has made a few significant gains the past few months, and thus isn't as willing to stop the madness as they might have been in the past... though recent err "threatening" events may change that.

furthermore, this country is right smack in the middle of a completely ravaged region. it's sent two million refugees across borders, overloading not just slightly shook countries like turkey, not just pressure cookers like lebanon and jordan, but only slightly less war-torn iraq that seems to produce another dozen deaths on the news every time i look.

ceasefires will be scattered and often broken because that's the nature of the conflict. but they will save lives and reduce tension and violence across the region, if only by maintaining some semblance of regular life and incentivizing good order on both sides. who knows what a political solution will be in the future -- the idea that overthrowing assad or excluding him from the peace process could possibly be less bloody than the pragmatic course of settlement is complete lunacy.

compare this with dropping bombs? even the limited narrow path or w/e obama wants to call it... for the sake of saving people in the future, presumably by showing the stick and warning the world, i predict quite reasonably that a whole lot more people will die. simply because it will exacerbate the conflict by raising rebel hope/morale and strengthening regime resolve.

additionally, just those words "narrow path". they should scare people. just two years ago obama was rather quick to extend the security council resolution for libya into acting as the de facto air force for the rebels. since assad/syria has been an antagonist to american interests much more consistently and for much longer than ghadaffi/libya ever was, i have a fear the same would happen here.

[KeylessEntry]

Imagine if the USA did not have the most powerful military in the world, and UN states were voting on whether they should "punish" us for something with a bombing campaign.

John Kerry said that a chemical weapon attack is a moral obscenity. I dont disagree with his statement, but there is some seriously tragic comedy when the words "moral obscenity" come out of the mouth a secretary of state whose country does things like torturing indefinitely detained prisoners.

[zoom17]

Syria isn't defenseless

[gigantes]

small ding-dong?

[zoom17]

small ding-dong?

What?

[tomtucker]

Imagine if the USA did not have the most powerful military in the world, and UN states were voting on whether they should "punish" us for something with a bombing campaign.

John Kerry said that a chemical weapon attack is a moral obscenity. I dont disagree with his statement, but there is some seriously tragic comedy when the words "moral obscenity" come out of the mouth a secretary of state whose country does things like torturing indefinitely detained prisoners.

have to agree on this.........the united states used chemical warfare in vietnam, ruining the countryside and causing cancer and other shit.......what if some countries later said : we need to attack the united states and punish them for their moral obscenity and crimes against humanity

[tomtucker]

don't let congress vote on the attack on syria, let the people vote, a nationwide vote, like the presidential election........it is a democracy right ?

i am sure 85% votes no.

[macmac]

have to agree on this.........the united states used chemical warfare in vietnam, ruining the countryside and causing cancer and other shit.......what if some countries later said : we need to attack the united states and punish them for their moral obscenity and crimes against humanity

USA is the only country to have used nuclear weapons.

After 1960, USA, USSR and Iraq are the only countries to have used chemical weapons. Agent orange in Nam, the Russians in Afghanistan and Iraq during the war with Iran, with chemical weapons directly purchased from the Americans lol.

And this is the country that is playing world police? The only thing the US is really doing is exporting war, it's what made America a super power in the first place, after all.

[travelingman]

don't let congress vote on the attack on syria, let the people vote, a nationwide vote, like the presidential election........it is a democracy right ?

i am sure 85% votes no.

No

[code green]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/us...tion.html?_r=0

It starts.

[Derka]

don't let congress vote on the attack on syria, let the people vote, a nationwide vote, like the presidential election........it is a democracy right ?

i am sure 85% votes no.

No, we're a republic. We elect leaders to make decisions for us.