Obama is going to bomb Syria.

Syria: Cameron and Obama move west closer to intervention
British prime minister and US president agree that alleged chemical attack 'requires a response'

The Observer, Sunday 25 August 2013

David Cameron and Barack Obama moved the west closer to military intervention in Syria on Saturday as they agreed that last week's alleged chemical weapon attacks by the Assad regime had taken the crisis into a new phase that merited a "serious response".

In a phone call that lasted 40 minutes, the two leaders are understood to have concluded that the regime of Bashar al-Assad was almost certainly responsible for the assault that is believed to have killed as many as 1,400 people in Damascus in the middle of last week.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/24/syria-cameron-obama-intervention

Obama needs to divert attention away from his failed economic policies.

 

Obama's security clearance isn't high enough to get a bombing run started probably. Strafing maybe...

 

Interesting group of veil-clad ladies on a corner in Bellevue, WA this afternoon with large sign: "Democracy in Syria Now"

 

Oh heck yes.. protests always have such a great effect! They might escalate to a candle vigil.

Syrian fighting could scale up and get out of control. Their long time ally, Iran, might unleash virus weapons anywhere in the world. Iran might even surprise everybody and set off a nuke. China needs Iran's oil so China might get involved. Russia considers the ME to be their territory, was strongly Anti-Israel in the Cold war period if not before and after, they could get involved if Israel gets attacked... . Pakistan is a nuclear power and they could do something stupid and bring in India even..

 

Agreed. And I'll note, we've really got no business being the World's cop. I truly believe our Founding Fathers would have let other countries do what they'll do, all the while keeping America strong. Guess ill never be a CNN, bsnbc, etc., anchor opining common sense stuff.

 

Not everyone is as certain about the chemical weapons theory:

"Western experts on chemical warfare who have examined at least part of the footage are skeptical that weapons-grade chemical substances were used, although they all emphasize that serious conclusions cannot be reached without thorough on-site examination. Dan Kaszeta, a former officer of the U.S. Army’s Chemical Corps and a leading private consultant, pointed out a number of details absent from the footage so far: “None of the people treating the casualties or photographing them are wearing any sort of chemical-warfare protective gear,” he says, “and despite that, none of them seem to be harmed.” This would seem to rule out most types of military-grade chemical weapons, including the vast majority of nerve gases, since these substances would not evaporate immediately, especially if they were used in sufficient quantities to kill hundreds of people, but rather leave a level of contamination on clothes and bodies which would harm anyone coming in unprotected contact with them in the hours after an attack. In addition, he says that “there are none of the other signs you would expect to see in the aftermath of a chemical attack, such as intermediate levels of casualties, severe visual problems, vomiting and loss of bowel control.”

Steve Johnson, a leading researcher on the effects of hazardous material exposure at England’s Cranfield University who has worked with Britain’s Ministry of Defense on chemical warfare issues, agrees that “from the details we have seen so far, a large number of casualties over a wide area would mean quite a pervasive dispersal. With that level of chemical agent, you would expect to see a lot of contamination on the casualties coming in ,and it would affect those treating them who are not properly protected. We are not seeing that here.” Additional questions also remain unanswered, especially regarding the timing of the attack, being that it occurred on the exact same day that a team of UN inspectors was in Damascus to investigate earlier claims of chemical weapons use. It is also unclear what tactical goal the Syrian army would have been trying to achieve, when over the last few weeks it has managed to push back the rebels who were encroaching on central areas of the capital. But if this was not a chemical weapons attack, what then caused the deaths of so many people without any external signs of trauma?"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/daniel-mcadams/us-set-to-launch-iraq-the-sequel/

 

The rebels probably set it off themselves. Many are ex Syrian soldiers and know where the chem depots are. Why would Assad use chemicals when he was already winning according to most sources?

British newspapers are rapidly reporting that a military strike is imminent within the week.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...vy-ready-to-launch-first-strike-on-Syria.html

By Tim Ross and Ben Farmer10:00PM BST 25 Aug 2013

Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria
Britain is planning to join forces with America and launch military action against Syria within days in response to the gas attack believed to have been carried out by President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against his own people.

 

Quite frankly it wouldnt surprise me if the nut jobs in Al Quaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood were gassing themselves, just to snooker us into backing them up, because obama shot his mouth off over the red line.

 

We always knew that when the scandals got too big, bombs would start flying. It's the first and only requirement for war during a democratic admin.

 

And that's a bad thing? Let's just nuke the entire region and be done with it. We all know that's how this ends, so let's get on with it.