What is going on in Syria? Two scenarios ...

Assad, who knows it would be suicide if his government were ever to use chemical weapons, and has been consistently on record claiming the Syrian military is not, nor has not used chemical weapons, decided to unleash them anyway at the precise moment when UN chemical weapons inspectors arrived in country, and then deployed them literally fifteen minutes from where the inspectors were staying in a hotel. Or ...

The US backed rebels staged the attack (if there even was one), just as they have done not once but twice over the past two years, to implicate the Syrian government and justify a full scale US invasion. You know, the type of bloody ground invasion our war pig, bankster run government has been salivating over ever since they realized the couldn't just light up Iran like they did Libya and Iraq, and need the strategic position of Syria (who has a mutual defense pact with Iran) neutralized in order to continue the full-spectrum dominance over the Middle East.

Now I wonder which one it could be?

Our last big intervention in the Middle East went so well, I can see why people would want to ensure that a toxic cloud of nerve gas drifts over innocents in Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, and Iran. After all, the US has infinite money and power and doesn't need to allocate things so that its influence helps the greatest number of people.

Heck, I bet this would finally patch up things with Russia as well. It's not like they're down to just one friendly regime in the area.

Well, there are horrible things happening over there, so I can understand the urge to help. But...who are 'good' guys in this fight? And what could we really accomplish?

@Spindles What makes more sense: the rebels attacked themselves with chemical weapons and surface-to-surface missiles they don't possess OR Assad's incompetent goons launched another chemical attack at the wrong moment to terrorize the rebels?


Let's be very clear, the Obama administration is NOT starting a war with Syria. They're NOT pursuing regime change with this strike (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/…). And they're NOT acting to protect the Syrian rebels. The reason Obama is going to launch several cruise missiles into Syria is to protect his red line against the use of chemical weapons. That's it.

Assad can continue to kill as many people as he wants--as long as he does it with bombs and bullets.

After you read Packer's piece, read this piece in the TNR by Leon Wieseltier: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113460/… It argues why we should intervene more forcefully in Syria, and why Syria is NOT Iraq. Then read the rest of TNR excellent coverage on Syria: www.newrepublic.com/tags/syria

The WSJ had a good analysis piece on this yesterday. It said the main reason was actually Iran. Iran has nuclear and (I would presume) chemical weapons. It is also Assad's biggest regional supporter militarily. Obama thinks that allowing Assad to use chemical weapons sets a bad precedent for Iran was the thesis.

Personally, I think that a bombing is probably a good idea, but more in depth involvement is not.

The big problem is these people can't govern themselves, and no amount of intervention is going to fix that. Stability is more important than idealistic pursuits like "democracy" or "freedom." These are just words. Stability = peace= less people dying and more food and basic necessities being met. If it comes at the cost of ideals, so be it.

The rebellion can prevail if it proves it can rule first by getting enough support to win. If not, Assad should stay. But use of chemical weapons should not be tolerated by the international community.

Here's a good assessment by a respectable author, Tony Cartalucci. He's been spot on about Libya, Syria and Iran.

http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2013/08/…

Anybody who has been watching understands that the evidence for Assad's use of chemical weapons is mighty thin. Of course, you have the MOSSAD claiming to intercept a telephone conversation, but they would never lie to us, would they?