Discussing the matter in a 40 minute phone call on Saturday night, President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron agreed in principle to start attacking Syria within the next two weeks. France, long calling for such a war, is also reportedly in on the idea.
British officials familiar with the situation say that they didn’t rule out seeking UN support for the war, but also don’t expect to actually get that support, and are prepared to ignore the UN and attack anyhow.
The initial attacks are expected to center almost entirely around missile strikes on “command and control” areas, from the US warships which have been moved into the area in the past few days.
Britain is said to be particularly eager to get the attacks going quickly to avoid having to deal with the prospect of parliament voting on the war, and possibly preemptively rejecting the attack. They are also hoping to keep the first strikes very limited to justify not consulting parliament ahead of time.
Limited strikes seem to be the preference of US officials as well, as many are reluctant to see Syria’s rebels actually swept into power by the attacks, even though they seem entirely comfortable to commit themselves to protracted military involvement in the nation.
The question of war debate in the US seems to be entirely beside the point, after President Obama managed to get the US into a Libyan War without even the obligatory after-the-fact Congressional authorization. The polls show the American public still opposed to war as well, but that clearly doesn’t matter to the administration.
46 thoughts on “US, Britain and France Agree to Attack Syria Within Two Weeks”
Told you all so for the last eighteen months… No one believed me…
Maybe you'll listen when I tell you that Iran is next after the US and NATO attacks Syria and Israel attacks Lebanon.
Don't be so full of yourself. Who is that "no one" you are speaking about?
you are absolutely correct Richard………………….its soul destroying. Breaches International laws of war Now our countries soldiers can be taken to the international Court of Justice for war cries but the usa is not a party to this so they will never have to face this. Our Goverment is so stupid !
Our soldiers can't be taken to International Court because of this, it's just not true. Could our GOVERNMENT allow it to happen? Sure, this administration seems capable. But this stupid act of violence in response to a more monumental act of violence can't make US soldiers any more susceptible to international courts.
The criminal administration may listen if a million people start protesting. Something needs to be done and the onus is on the people, especially in the US, Britain and France.
Obama never dares to attack, not because US does not want to kill more and occupy Syria, but at this time they find it VERY RISKY to engage in an operation which is opposed by the world including their own allies (Italy) and majority of its own population, even the gullible when they say: WE DON'T CARE WHO USED THE WEAPON, BUT WE KNOW WE DON'T ANOTHER WAR.
Thus, the Evil empire must remain inward and wait for a better time to act, but knowing the degree of hatred of the people all over the world against Obama's regine crimes against humanity, and lack of any credible evidence of Syrian government involvement, the evil empire will backup.
These documents can PROVE that CIA helped Saddam to strike chemical weapon against Iranians where killed thousands of them (50,000) and left many victims behind who still have difficulties to breath. The release of these Documents make it easy for Iranina to sue American government for BILLIONS where makes Americans even POORER. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/…
Why would they have to respond Jamie? Not to say that people shouldn't be angry, but I can't say I see why the US administration would respond.
We could be seeing the beginning of a major regional war.
This could be the beginning of the third world war.
You are right it is!
These bloody warmongers act like it's a sporting event. They sit and watch people die on TV, and think it's the coolest thing around. They gripe about chemical weapons, and opt to blow people UP instead. (not as much bloating ?)
I guess the American people really ARE powerless. This is something I've known for a long……long……time. Now the evidence is even more apparent.
I see it as more indifferent. The politicians are very good at playing on American indifference and fanaticism. I'm surprised that we are not seeing more people demand that France do the heavy lifting on this issue. They have been the most vocal, like Libya, but then let the US do the paying monetarily and materially.
If this was a case of something more emotionally close to home that the politicians could get some credit for, then we'd see then jump in like the "Travon Martin" case. But, it's international and so Americans are indifferent.
'But Barack is the invasion a good idea?'
'Dave, get with the program. We're not invading, we're liberating."
'But must we, Barrie, really."
'Dave, baby, we do what we're told, you know that. Now finish that hot dog. It's from our sponsors.'
"Dave, yes, it is a kosher hot dog."
no, they are now both eunichs.
Geez; I'd say we all start writing our representatives in Congress, but that will be a waste of time.
So the marching orders from Tel Aviv finally arrived…
These fascists and war criminals may need all the good luck they can get with a "limited attack" to cripple Syria's defences. Syria who know Obombah´s and Cameron´s masters better then they, has made it clear that any western/Zionist direct intervention will lead to opening up the southern front to the zionist occupied Golan, as well as thousands of missiles, including chemical (for which it was intended) from all directions. SAA was trained for this exactly and nobody is itching more to deal with the murderous squatters than the Syrians. Iran, who is not going to wait to be the next victim, has warned Tel Aviv directly and so has Moscow with it´s massive armada just outside the coast and Bejing. Is "israels security" (hegemony) worth WW3?
Really, there isn't enough to this story that you had to put on a tinfoil fez and decide that Israel is pulling the strings? The simplest answer is usually the correct one.
Aren't Russian warships there as well????????
………….and if those Russian warships should decide to do something about it, then what?
Obama has reassuring words for you! "The Russians will back down. Everyone shakes in his boots before our invincible military might. Who can make war against us? We will remake the world as we see fit, and no one can do anything about it."
The FedGov's Grande Armee, so intent on reordering the world, is on the brink of crossing its Niemen, to march on Moscow – figuratively speaking – and impose terms on the Kremlin.
No,they're not. And they're not likely to go either. Putin has been outplayed by Obama. The 'chemical weapons' hoax worked. There will be intervention and it will be bloody.
So the puppet master eventually achieved its goal and the british, US-american and french puppets will kill many more thousand arabs on behalf of a certain middle Eastern country……
The alleged use of chemical weapons is no excuse for America to take sides in this distant civil war.
Not only are these dubious allegations about chemical weapons unproven, but killing someone via conventional bombing or using white phospherous or a 'chemical weapon' still kills a living human being. That's what matters most. The brouhaha over killing via 'chemical weapons' is a moral smoke-screen since weapons choices merely involve selecting different modes of using lethal violence. It's killing itself that is most egregious. After that, the question of who is being killed and under what circumstances must be explored. But formulating a war based on the type type of weapon allegedly used by a distant sovereign State in a protracted civil war is absurd. If the dead could talk they would surely agree.
This chemical weapons outrage is just more of the same fake morality that continuously seeps out of America's Zionist-friendly gutter. Let's just stop the wars, the occupations, the invasions and the killings, OK? Unfortunately, that is not the way America now operates.
But the most important questions are these: who is being killed (is it the aggressor?) or is someone less morally culpable?
And why is it in American interests to join another far-flung blood-bath?
Here's why: The US WANTS to launch another war on an 'unfriendly' Arab state that also happens to have a grievance against Israel.
Sadly, US foreign policy has been outsourced to Tel Aviv.
Wow, you were laser sharp with the first half. If you actually believed the first part, it would have shredded any thoughts you wrote afterwards. Pity.
Never since 1939 the world was closer to war……
Not very historically accurate, but certainly displays your feelings.
WAG THAT DOG.
This will bury the Snowden story presto. And the increasing creaky "Quantiative Easing Infinity" which seems to start to collapse.
The French minister of foreign affairs, Laurent Fabius, can't wait for evidence, he's foaming at the mouth for war. That's basically what he said on a radio channel this morning. If France goes on the warpath against Syria, it will probably be missile strikes, and maybe military aircraft bombing Syria, rather than boots on the ground. I am French. There were 1.4 million demonstrators in Paris against gay marriage (I didn't go, being rather indifferent to the issue). If push comes to shove, I hope that there will be several million demonstrators against the war, and I'll be one of them.
But demonstrations won't be enough. American, British and French leaders have shown repeatedly that they don't care about public opinion, and they know how to circumvent their own parliaments.
Neither the USA, nor the UK or France, wants to be involved in actual fighting. But missile strikes can tip the balance, and do much harm. Besides, it's like the murder of the archduke in Sarajevo, 99 years ago: the law of unintended consequences can have dreadful effects.
i was one of the very few over here defending and respecting the french gv. and people who refused to knuckling-under the hectoring of the usa for the illegal and immoral terrorist attack and occupation of iraq many years ago…Matter of fact at a restaurant when i asked for french fries i became embroiled in a debate with the waitress… i told her if it wasn't want for the french you wouldn't have won the war against the english and go look whats a'top elllis island… i ended up leaving….Now france is calling for war? ugh!!
The shadow government of Count Cheney rules and Obama must accept the evil.
Those cowards will attack nobody because they will get some serious hurt.
It will take direct'..action' against the warmongers to stop this new genocide—writing and demonstrating are f worthless.duh
So, what will President in Waiting Hillary do about Obama's conversion to dumb warmongering?
Stick with the family's core beliefs, as she did with Iran sanctions, and go with the flow or think for herself?
Think for herself? What in her experience would make one think she'd be any different than O or even W on everlasting war? She is as beholden to the Lobby as the rest.
So we are going to bomb them but not too much so that the war might be won by the opposition? WTF?
psychopaths….how bout some of that 'zero-tolerance to violence' the gov. teaches my kids at school? And what they demand of me as a citizen?
"Britain is said to be particularly eager to get the attacks going quickly"
No it's not. A small clique of Zionists, led by Cameron and Hague, are particularly eager to get the attacks going quickly.
Isn't that great! Finally we can get rid of Assad and have true democracy in Syria!
The lads at the office must be ecstatic…only they know how much hard work goes into making sure readers get the real picture about the ME…
I remember when the Commie Kruschev took off his shoe and started banging it on the table at the UN.
I wonder when Obozo will take his off. I hope Putin has the guts to at least condemn this blatant act of aggression.
I'm not sure I believe a word of it. Feels bogus to me. Feels like psychological warfare.
First off, you don't announce an attack, in particular you don't announce an attack two weeks from now. Making a threat is inherently a psychological ploy.
If it's a domestic audience one is playing to, posturing and making threats may very well look like strength,… to the dimwitted. Which has its uses. And then of course dramatic war talk will divert attention from the Snowden affair. So there's a second benefit.
Next, there's Russia and China to consider. If you give them two weeks, you give them time for a countermove. What will they do in that time?
China can heavy-lift in a new batch of anti-ship missiles, or make a quiet diplomatic phone call to the U.S. State Department, announcing that, starting with an initial $100 billion sale, China will begin to sell off ten billion dollars worth of U.S. Treasury bonds per day, for every day the U.S. fleet remains off the Lebanese Coast. The dollar dives, and nary a bullet fired. Whatever. Pressure can be applied. Then there's Russia. For his part, Putin can ship post haste a load of advanced S300 or S400 anti-aircraft missile systems to the Syrians, along with Russian personnel fully trained operate them.
If on the other hand, if it's just a threat, then Assad gets another blood pressure spike, American GI Joe knuckle-dragging coach potatoes get a roaring hard on, and everybody forgets about Snowden in an info-tainment tsunami of media war talk.
Anyway, never a dull moment.
Well Jeff you clearly don't know who makes up the US military, or perhaps you just don't like the idea of them?
If he really wants to slaughter his own people, without risking too much US griping, Assad should just shoot civilians point blank in the head and chest.
Works for the Egyptian military.
Could we please have a government that puts the safety and wishes of its own population first instead of rushing into another provocative war.
article's final sentence intrigues me. in 2001, public opinion supported war. in 2003, shortly before invasion, poll results shifted to support for another war. clearly, public opinion got it wrong then. why does anyone think it's right this time?
Comments are closed.