The US continues to move warships in the Mediterranean into the area around Syria, with indications that an attack could be imminent. Officials say that President Obama is still “considering options” on exactly how to attack.
But Pentagon officials discussing the situation yesterday say that they have cruise missiles ready to go, just waiting for the president’s say-so, and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel confirmed that the call to prepare the missiles came on orders from Obama.
Missile strikes would get the president out of having to put US warplanes at risk of being shot down by Syria’s air defenses, and with President Obama looking to sell his intervention plans as reluctant, are likely to be spun as a compromise “limited” action, even if they quickly escalate out of control.
Though officials continue to say President Obama is waiting to get a more clear account of what happened, there is little indication that it means waiting on actual proof of the Syrian government’s responsibility, as officials have already insisted they are “convinced” of that despite no real evidence to that effect.
The big question is whether clearer heads can still prevail in the face of another round of calls for attack from NATO members like France and Turkey, or more precisely whether Obama thinks he can get enough international support to get away with launching such a war even though he’ll clearly be doing it without UN authorization.
If an attack does happen, expect the US to attempt to keep it pretty limited at first, both for the sake of not fueling public opposition, and to avoid a quick regime change that puts the al-Qaeda-backed rebels in power, since this appears to be simultaneously the worst-case scenario and the one the US attack will be pushing the nation toward.
If the President orders an attack on Syria based on flawed allegations, and before a thorough and fair investigation has been completed and Syria is identified with certainty, the President himself will have crossed a 'red line' justifying his own impeachment and prosecution. People are sick and tired of fabricated intelligence being used to frame other nations and to to justify aggressive military action.
If there was no move to impeach after destroying Libya there won't be now.
and causing even more civilian casualties, but they don't care a hoot….
If ya can't get somebody else to do it for ya, ya then just gotta do it yourself.
Just wait, once they find out the cruise missiles won't do it, they then put the boots on the ground.
And all them innocent people, and all that once was a nation, forget about that. Details, details.
or for them is that the fun part?
Psycho, that's the word I'm looking for.
WAG THAT DOG!!
Poised to attack???
They *do* attack Syria since 2011 !! 100,000 killed, country destructed, 2 millions refugees !
Along with UK;France, Saudis,&Qatar and the U.S. created, organized, paid, armed and conducted proxy guerrilla killer of Al Qaeda, actually Al CIAda.
It was planned 2001 to attack 7 arab countries in 5 years – see the first two videos were former US General and US presidency candidate Wesley Clark confirms this and even shows the men behind this decision:
http://08oo.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/key-reasons-…
See also the video where Hillary Clinton confesses the creation of Al CIAda – but keeping on to lie when saying they now would be an enemy – in order to cover the the well proofed truth.
Antiwar shows this war criminal Obama still as more or less normal president – not as what he definitely is: A dirty killer.
Also the children recently killed by gas was his or one of his criminal allies work !!!
Those hypocrites in Washington and the so called Western civilized world were not poised to attack Israel after using phosphorous and incendiary munitions against civilians in Gaza.
The USA needs to stop trying to play the world's policemen and allow the UN to take care of business overseas. If the USA takes military action, it will be no different, and just as illegal as the attack on Iraq. You'd think the clowns in Washington would learn something from experience . . . if it took me that long to learn something new, I'd be out of a job and homeless . . . . that is where the clowns in Washington who support this belong.
I wish they were just clowns; then they would belong to the circus. Instead they are pathological criminals who are willing to commit the worst atrocities to reach their evil ends. Thus, they belong to the gallows.
With reports of closing American ships, US intervention in Syria’s civil war appears to be imminent. Horrible images of injured and dead men, women and children dominates the media. Is the purpose of such coverage about what actually took place, or is the purpose laying the ground work for yet one more Middle East war to effect yet one more regime change. The question of who was responsible for this chemical attack is seldom question by the alliance of nations who overtly and covertly support the rebels. Suspicions raised by the likes of Paula Vanninen of Verigin (Finnish Institute for Verification of the Chemical Weapons Convention) or John Hart of the Chemical and Biological Security Project, or Gwyn Winfield editor of CBRNe World magazine that deals with chemical weapons, or former US Army’s Chemical Corps officer Dan Daszeta, or Stephen Johnson (an expert on chemical explosives at Cranfield Forensic Institute–to name but a few–are brushed aside. Questions as to who would benefit more from a major chemical attack– Bashar al-Asad’s regime or the rebels seeking outside military intervention–find no answers among the anti-Asad cabal of governments and media. Whereas the DC wonks view the removal of Bashar al-Asad as a move against Iran and whereas the American public has indicated in numerous public opinion polls its desire to avoid invading Syria, the growing media coverage and “moral outrage” by oil kings, old imperialist country prime ministers, by presidents beholding to US largess, or by gun-ho DC politicians and former Iraqi war advocates is all too reminiscent of the lead up to the 2003 invasion. Civil wars are ugly and leave deep scars (some Americans still fight ours that took place 150 years ago). The ethnic and sectarian nature of Syria’s only multiples the ghastliness. What should be asked and analyzed is does overt American military intervention contribute to the disintegration of a sovereign state? Would a different approach that engages the warring parties in an attempt to terminate the bloodshed be a better use of American energy? Failing this, we should remember that wars are costly–in money, in lives and in psychological damage that have real life repercussions for all Americans.
Why is it assumed that the Syrian gov't did the chemical attack without proof? Seems to me that the so-called 'rebels' have a lot to gain by initiating this attack (getting the US military involved), while Assad has a lot to lose. Also, why is it assumed that Russia and China will continue to sit on their hands if the US starts lobbing cruise missiles? Maybe the Russians, in particular, now believe that the US has become an existential threat to them.
I don't suppose one of the options is to mind our own business, is it?
Obama inconsistency policies in the middle east is causing all this bloodshed, because at some point or another he supported all of these leaders, some that were elected at the poll and others that were dictators. He should have stood behind some of these leaders when things were about to get out of hand, but 'NO', he wants to continue to get information from the brain dead lobbying group AIPAC.
I keep telling you people this has nothing to do with "Al Qaeda running Syria". The ENTIRE purpose of this crisis is to degrade Syria's ability to hit Israel in an Iran war – and to enable Israel to attack Lebanon through Syrian territory to degrade Hizballah's ability to hit Israel in an Iran war.
The US and Israel couldn't care less who runs Syria. A bunch of Islamists with no standing missiles in Syria can't threaten Israel at all.