MSNBC: 2 instances of chemical weapons use in Syria

[Skidmore]

and Chris Matthews and a few others are on now talking about whether we will go to war again.

[kelliekat44]

1. Used by whom? nt

[Skidmore]

2. Kerry is a apparently trying to determine who used these

weapons. We don't know yet. But the war drums are being warmed up for sure.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Did Syria attack us with chemical weapons?

No? Then why should we expend blood and treasure on yet another war?

[JohnnyBoots]

4. Well said. NT

[Skidmore]

5. My sentiment but you know that the

war machine won't let an opportunity go by to keep its jobs program going.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. May I direct you at international law

Of which we are signatories? I promise, won't be just the US if any of this crap is actually...like confirmed and shit.

There are days I think people would love to leave completely the international stage, and this is on both extreme sides.

[Cali_Democrat]

15. Lacking a UN resolution, where in "intenational law" does it say....

that the US is obligated to attack any country that uses chemical weapons?

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. They are moving towards that...this is exactly where this

is moving.

[Cali_Democrat]

20. You think this is moving toward a full UN Security Council resolution for an attack on Syria?

And you think China or Russia would support that?

Really?

[pampango]

21. Russia warned Assad in the past not to use chemical weapons. If Russia cuts off the supply of arms

Assad will have to leave. There will not need to be any military action.

Assad defies the U.S. and Russia

Assad’s use of the chemical weapons crosses the “red line” stated last month by President Obama. But perhaps more important is that it also violates the warnings made privately to Assad by Russia. The Russian caution towards Assad about chemical weapons was noted by Vitaly Naumkin, director of the Institute of Oriental Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences and a Russian expert on the Middle East, in response to a question at a security conference here organized by the Institute for National Security Studies, an Israeli think tank.

The crisis should convince Russian President Vladimir Putin that it’s time to abandon his support for Assad and begin to work for a political transition in Syria. Assad is apparently so desperate that he has ignored warning about the chemical weapons not just from Washington, but also from Moscow. Will Putin really allow the Syrian dictator to use weapons of mass destruction in defiance of Russia?

The shared U.S. and Russian opposition to any use of chemical weapons in Syria was discussed in February by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Vice President Joe Biden when they met on the sidelines of a security conference in Munich. The two also talked about ways they could cooperate in safeguarding the weapons if Assad’s regime is toppled. Yet Russia said in March, after the initial reports of Syrian chemical weapons use, that both sides in the Syrian civil war had made claims and called for a UN investigation of all such accusations. Lavrov summarized this position Tuesday in comments to reporters in Brussels and said investigators should focus on specific reports about the weapons’ use, rather than make a broader inquiry.
Has the Obama administration pressed Moscow about Assad’s violation of their joint red line—and proposed that the offense is a basis for action to force Assad to hand over power? I hope so. That’s the only explanation for Washington’s strange silence as the evidence mounts of Assad’s brutal tactics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/04/23/in-using-chemical-weapons-syria-assad-defies-the-u-s-and-russia/

If Russia does agree to pull the plug on Assad there won't be any need for an attack. Without the constant supply of weapons from Russia to Assad he is as good as gone and he knows it. If Russia puts an arms embargo on Assad, he will be able to read the handwriting on the wall.It might not leave right away, but he would know his days are numbered.

So it really comes down to Putin. Russia has supported the idea of a UN investigation into "all such accusations" of chemical weapons use. So far Assad has not allowed the UN to enter the country to do this.

If Putin want so continue to support Assad no matter what, I do not think there is much the US or anyone else can do. If chemical weapons are then used on a larger scale, that will be too bad for the Syrian people and Putin will have to live with the consequences.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Yes, WMD's are a red line for the Russians too

[Cali_Democrat]

25. Unlikely

Russia will cut off arms flow or impose additional sanctions, but they will not call for a military intervention in Syria.

Not gonna happen.

[pampango]

26. IF Russia cuts off the arms flow, there will not need to be any military intervention in Syria.

Assad will have nothing to fight with. He will know he is finished before he suffers the fate of Mubarak or Gaddafi. Better to leave with your money like Ben Ali did.

[Cali_Democrat]

27. True. n/t

[riderinthestorm]

32. Ben Ali didn't have a Russian naval port like Syria does. Russia will shift the goalposts

(as if those goalposts were ever set in concrete anyway - more like sand).

Like Obama it will be quite convenient for Putin to keep stalling until "REAL" confirmation comes in. And stall, and stall, and stall...

Russia understands that Assad won't even make it out to his helicopter pad before the genocide in Syria will begin if he's forced out. China does as well. Both of those emerging superpowers are allied with Iran - they understand that pissing off the ayatollahs will go badly for them in their quest for oil to continue their growth. The ayatollah's want Assad to stay in power. For all we know China is also supplying arms to Assad. Nobody is getting accurate information really. Honestly, we don't even know if chemical weapons were used. Do you believe this report? I don't. It makes no sense that Assad would risk all out war with the US AND losing out on the military largesse of his benefactors.

The killing of Shia will begin at the top with the most accessible figurehead - Assad. The regional sectarian battle that will engulf the region is bad for everyone - including Russia.

I don't even see Assad and his family being able to get out safely with a negotiated settlement. Its gone too far already.

I can't see any scenario other than a protracted civil war whether Assad stays or goes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. We'll see

One thing I have learned over the years is that unlikely and never are really not operational in the international arena.

[riderinthestorm]

17. Agreed but the situation is actually a lot more complex than that.

The conflict in Syria is exposing the Sunni/Shia divide back into the forefront and old historic allies are jumping geopolitical borders.

Think of this as closer to WWI, an imperfect analogy but instructive in how the alliances can mean we are doomed to enter, even reluctantly.

Shia Iran is allied with Shia Assad in Syria. The Shia in that region know and understand that there will be a genocidal bloodbath if Assad falls since the Saudi and Gulf state backed "revolutionaries" (cough*Sunni Islamists*cough) will ignite the region in sectarian war. Shia Lebanon, Hezbollah, Iran and much of Iraq won't go down without a massive fight.

So the alliances are compelling: The US backs Israel (always the wild card in the middle), the Saudis and the other Gulf States (Sunni). Russia and China predominantly back the Shia states of Iran and Syria.

Depending on what moves are made in this devilish knot will perhaps force our hand one way or another (say Iran launches weapons at Israel - which they have threatened to do if the US persists in destabilizing Assad).

Personally, I don't think Obama will find the chemical weapons use sufficiently persuasive on the face of it. He can stall - waiting for a lot more evidence (ie, stall forever "waiting" for solid evidence). I don't think his Admin wants another war.

HOWEVER, the elephant in the room is the military industrial complex which has demonstrated its might. Can THEY manipulate the events to orchestrate some kind of catastrophic trigger? Certainly. Do THEY want war with Iran? Yup. Is Syria a sneaky "back door" way to go after Iran (since they will back up Syria)?

This is a very, very simplified view of what's happening there. There is so, so much more but at least this gives a brief overview of how some things are going on behind the scenes that "we" don't have a lot of control over.

[bowens43]

6. " The war machine springs to life Opens up one eager eye"

It's been to long without a full blown conflict.

[librechik]

7. translation:" Our push to get the US into a war with Iran is failing."

[brooklynite]

8. So, your view is the Obama Administration wants to start a war...

...and doesn't care which one?

Well, that's a more creative position than most.

[librechik]

9. not Obama, the War Party. They are flipping a coin on where they want to put their lobbying cash

Iran or Syria. Despite Israel's first dibs, the WP doesn't care which country gets the shock and awe. The War Party is full of neocons and defense industry types who make their money when war is made. So whatever.

altho lots of folks on the forum will argue that Obama is a card carrying member of The War Party, I disagree. He is more like their captured slave.

[brooklynite]

11. So, President Obama is either an accomplice or a dupe?

Last I checked, he' appointed the heads of DOD and the CIA

[librechik]

13. I don't see how that contradicts me. The appointments are pleasing to his "owners"

have you noticed that many other, more liberal appointments are stalled and never go forward? I wonder why that is?

[bowens43]

19. in many instances he's both.

[brooklynite]

33. Funny how he didn't get us into a war in Libya.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

10. Hmmm, sounds like a TP not an OP

Their problem/Our problem.

[srican69]

14. here is the lockheed martin stock for you

https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1366660800000&chddm=22862&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSE:LMT&ntsp=1&ei=SWt5UYCgH5KUkQPXTg

Austerity? What Austerity?

[eissa]

18. I thought we were broke?

Oh, silly me.....we're only broke when it comes to SS, education, Medicare, and any social program that might benefit the poor. There's always money for war, especially when it involves brown people/Muslims.

[bigdarryl]

22. Lying FUCKS Syria didnt use no chemical weapons

The media and the war profitiars are trying to get use in another shooting war.Who was it that said WAR IS A RACKET!!!

[Skidmore]

24. You have witnesses to refute reports? Share, please.

[bigdarryl]

28. No but remember Iraq had weapons of mass destruction

It was a lie and the media helped DUMB fuck Bush with that lie you hear the same bullshit

[Skidmore]

30. Bottom line is that we don't know.

[Cali_Democrat]

31. As you can see....

Darryl is very passionate about this stuff