U.S.-NATO Missiles/Bombs on Syria within 15 to 25 days . . .

[michigancat]

My Indiana coworker says we're going to invade Syria so we have another base of operations for our war with Iran. (We invaded Iraq for the same reason, apparently). This was all confirmed with his ex-CIA friend.

[michigancat]

Also, we provided the chemical weapons used and wanted to be baited into war, (just like how we knew about 9-11).

[Emo EMAW]

Why do we care so much about a country we only do $40MM worth of trade with in a year?

[michigancat]

Why do we care so much about a country we only do $40MM worth of trade with in a year?

base to fight a war with Iran

[sonofdaxjones]

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/151261/russia-asks-turkey-for-info-on-sarin-terrorists.html

Since this article has re-emerged suddenly all the FB political pundits are commentating.

cRustyMicMichiCat . . .

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania (Australia) geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources."

"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.”

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained."

  Zbiginew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard)

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

This is getting serious. Obama has cancelled a fundraiser at a Hollywood mansion. 

[mortons toe]

cRustycat...

[CNS]

So, CNN is saying that Obama said that because the UN paralysis on this issue, countries should be willing to act without UN authorization.

Also, Iran saying that we will be terrorists if we attack and then they threaten us if we do attack.

Also, Also, heard on the KC news radio this morning that congress is meeting today to finalize a resolution for 60 days of strike with 30 days additional missile work if needed, but not troops and that the resolution will be voted on early next week.

So, this all sounds to be getting worse.

[sonofdaxjones]

While some of the hyperbole is over the top (and possibly the Captain Obvious point of the day) a large war coming out of this is very possible if the U.S. strikes.

The Russians are pretty adamant about the possibility that it wasn't the regime engaged in the gas attack.

[OregonSmock]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/09/russian-official-floats-plan-to-avert-military-strike-on-syria/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D371669

President Obama's "Plan A" for a military strike on Syria could be in danger just one day before he makes his case to the American people as Russia, the U.N. and some in Congress push for a newly emerging "Plan B."

Gaining traction is a push to compel the Assad regime to turn over its chemical weapons.

The idea caught fire unexpectedly on Monday after Secretary of State John Kerry made an off-hand comment that Syria could resolve the stand-off by relinquishing its chemical weapons within a week. Kerry claimed that Assad "isn't about to do it" -- and an aide suggested the secretary was not being serious.

But within hours, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow would push Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control.

Officials with the State Department and the White House have since said they'll take a "hard look" at the Russians' proposal.

"We would welcome Assad giving up his chemical weapons. ... That would be terrific," White House Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken said, while stressing that Congress should still vote to authorize the use of force in order to keep the pressure on Syria.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and British Prime Minister David Cameron also reportedly indicated support for the plan to have Syria turn over chemical weapons to international control. And a pair of U.S. senators is already pushing an alternative resolution in Congress that would achieve similar goals.

Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D, who are opposed to a strike on Syria at this time, are pushing a resolution that would give Syria 45 days to join the international convention against chemical weapons and take "concrete steps" to comply with it.

In a written statement, Heitkamp said this would have Bashar Assad "begin the process of turning over its chemical weapons."

"If, after 45 days, the Assad regime mistakes our deliberate and careful democratic process for lack of will and immunity, it does so at its own peril," she said.

Manchin and Heitkamp have been promised a vote on their proposal, Fox News is told.

It's unclear whether the Obama administration, which is pushing a military strike in response to an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack blamed on the Assad regime, will seriously consider these offers.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki seemed to walk back Kerry's original remark, clarifying that Kerry "was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used."

She added: "His point was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons otherwise he would have done so long ago."

But the State Department said later in the day that it would take a "hard look" at the proposal.

Lavrov said he has already handed over the proposal and expects a "quick, and hopefully, positive answer."

"We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons," he said.

Syria's foreign minister said the country welcomes the Russian proposal.

The alternative plan could offer Obama, who is planning a national address on Tuesday, a lifeline as he prepares for a tough set of votes on Capitol Hill. The Senate could hold a key test vote as early as Wednesday. However, with the defection of Heitkamp and many others, it will be a tough climb to corral the 60 votes that are likely necessary to advance the use-of-force resolution. The House is an even tougher sell.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid was expected to formally tee up the test vote on Monday.

Lavrov's statement followed media reports alleging that Russian President Vladimir Putin, who discussed Syria with Obama during the group of 20 summit in St. Petersburg last week, sought to negotiate a deal that would have Assad hand over control of chemical weapons.

Speaking earlier in the day, Lavrov denied that Russia was trying to sponsor any deal "behind the back of the Syrian people."

Seems like a pretty good "plan B." 


 

[Dugout DickStone]

While some of the hyperbole is over the top (and possibly the Captain Obvious point of the day) a large war coming out of this is very possible if the U.S. strikes.

The Russians are pretty adamant about the possibility that it wasn't the regime engaged in the gas attack.

LOL.  the Russians didn't want a piece of us 30 years ago when they were a well disciplined Superpower.  They are now a band of gypsies who swill after shave and wrestle each other in the snow.  We would run rule them.

[sonofdaxjones]

While some of the hyperbole is over the top (and possibly the Captain Obvious point of the day) a large war coming out of this is very possible if the U.S. strikes.

The Russians are pretty adamant about the possibility that it wasn't the regime engaged in the gas attack.

LOL.  the Russians didn't want a piece of us 30 years ago when they were a well disciplined Superpower.  They are now a band of gypsies who swill after shave and wrestle each other in the snow.  We would run rule them.

I said large war, I didn't say it was going to be against the Russians, only that that Russians are saying it wasn't the regime who used gas.

[felix rex]

Seems like a pretty good "plan B." 

Agreed. I mean, the point was to prevent another attack, right? Excellent move by the Russians pouncing on the miscue and calling our bluff.

[CNS]

Seems like a pretty good "plan B." 

Agreed. I mean, the point was to prevent another attack, right? Excellent move by the Russians pouncing on the miscue and calling our bluff.

Could this also be worth something more in helping us save face because of the fact that we talked forever about a red line and could possibly not do anything?  I mean, that would be worth something politically, I would think.

[Dugout DickStone]

While some of the hyperbole is over the top (and possibly the Captain Obvious point of the day) a large war coming out of this is very possible if the U.S. strikes.

The Russians are pretty adamant about the possibility that it wasn't the regime engaged in the gas attack.

LOL.  the Russians didn't want a piece of us 30 years ago when they were a well disciplined Superpower.  They are now a band of gypsies who swill after shave and wrestle each other in the snow.  We would run rule them.

I said large war, I didn't say it was going to be against the Russians, only that that Russians are saying it wasn't the regime who used gas.

Well how are the 2 things you posted related?  Or they weren't

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/09/russian-official-floats-plan-to-avert-military-strike-on-syria/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D371669

President Obama's "Plan A" for a military strike on Syria could be in danger just one day before he makes his case to the American people as Russia, the U.N. and some in Congress push for a newly emerging "Plan B."

Gaining traction is a push to compel the Assad regime to turn over its chemical weapons.

The idea caught fire unexpectedly on Monday after Secretary of State John Kerry made an off-hand comment that Syria could resolve the stand-off by relinquishing its chemical weapons within a week. Kerry claimed that Assad "isn't about to do it" -- and an aide suggested the secretary was not being serious.

But within hours, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow would push Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control.

Officials with the State Department and the White House have since said they'll take a "hard look" at the Russians' proposal.

"We would welcome Assad giving up his chemical weapons. ... That would be terrific," White House Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken said, while stressing that Congress should still vote to authorize the use of force in order to keep the pressure on Syria.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and British Prime Minister David Cameron also reportedly indicated support for the plan to have Syria turn over chemical weapons to international control. And a pair of U.S. senators is already pushing an alternative resolution in Congress that would achieve similar goals.

Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D, who are opposed to a strike on Syria at this time, are pushing a resolution that would give Syria 45 days to join the international convention against chemical weapons and take "concrete steps" to comply with it.

In a written statement, Heitkamp said this would have Bashar Assad "begin the process of turning over its chemical weapons."

"If, after 45 days, the Assad regime mistakes our deliberate and careful democratic process for lack of will and immunity, it does so at its own peril," she said.

Manchin and Heitkamp have been promised a vote on their proposal, Fox News is told.

It's unclear whether the Obama administration, which is pushing a military strike in response to an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack blamed on the Assad regime, will seriously consider these offers.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki seemed to walk back Kerry's original remark, clarifying that Kerry "was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used."

She added: "His point was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons otherwise he would have done so long ago."

But the State Department said later in the day that it would take a "hard look" at the proposal.

Lavrov said he has already handed over the proposal and expects a "quick, and hopefully, positive answer."

"We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons," he said.

Syria's foreign minister said the country welcomes the Russian proposal.

The alternative plan could offer Obama, who is planning a national address on Tuesday, a lifeline as he prepares for a tough set of votes on Capitol Hill. The Senate could hold a key test vote as early as Wednesday. However, with the defection of Heitkamp and many others, it will be a tough climb to corral the 60 votes that are likely necessary to advance the use-of-force resolution. The House is an even tougher sell.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid was expected to formally tee up the test vote on Monday.

Lavrov's statement followed media reports alleging that Russian President Vladimir Putin, who discussed Syria with Obama during the group of 20 summit in St. Petersburg last week, sought to negotiate a deal that would have Assad hand over control of chemical weapons.

Speaking earlier in the day, Lavrov denied that Russia was trying to sponsor any deal "behind the back of the Syrian people."

Seems like a pretty good "plan B." 


 

A better "plan A".

Putin should have won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

[Gooch]

LOL.  the Russians didn't want a piece of us 30 years ago when they were a well disciplined Superpower.  They are now a band of gypsies who swill after shave and wrestle each other in the snow.  We would run rule them.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It's OK guys, if we do engage in military action, it will be an "unbelievably small, limited kind of effort." That's our Secretary of State John "I fought in Vietnam" Kerry. That's this administration's version of... well, I don't have a rough ridin' clue what that is, exactly.

Basically, we've got a president who went off prompter and blithy gave an ultimatum, the ultimatum was ignored because nobody's actually intimidated by this clown, so now he thinks he's gotta do something about it or else people will think he's a pussy (they already do, hence ignoring the ultimatum in the first place), except, he is a pussy, so he doen't really want to do anything except launch a few missles at targets that have long grown stale while he continues to agonize and try to "organize" some sort of coalition. JFC.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

How much time has to pass before we (the U.S.) can't really say we're reacting to Syria's alleged use of Chemical weapons?

All this jerking around and posturing to try and preemptively distinguish the impending bombing of Syria from Iraq is god awful, horrific foreign policy, and just another example of how terrible B.O. is at his job. 

Doing nothing is fine with me, and doing something right away at least sends the message that "'merica won't stand for that type of violence", but this approach is like picking the worst of both options because it accomplishes the goal of neither while suffering all the consequences.  Like someone who is lactose intolerant deciding to drink milk, but only after its expired.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Doing nothing is fine with me, and doing something right away at least sends the message that "'merica won't stand for that type of violence", but this approach is like picking the worst of both options because it accomplishes the goal of neither while suffering all the consequences.  Like someone who is lactose intolerant deciding to drink milk, but only after its expired.

 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Putin, tho 

 

[michigancat]

LOL, how embarrassing for the administration and other war-mongers.

[felix rex]

speaking strictly as an observer of foreign diplomacy, this has been a great rough ridin' ride.

[michigancat]

speaking strictly as an observer of foreign diplomacy, this has been a great rough ridin' ride.

It's so hilarious, isn't it? I mean I didn't really get a chance to see anything until the 11 o'clock news, and I literally laughed out loud during the story.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Here is why Hollywood is silent on Syria.

Another reason some Hollywood progressives have been reticent to speak out against war in Syria, according to Asner, is fear of being called racist.

"A lot of people don't want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama," he said.