Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Peace Prize Prez Prepared to Pound

Posted by   + Show Post

Military strikes on Syria 'as early as Thursday,' US officials say

Officials tell NBC News they have intelligence intercepts tying the chemical attacks to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The White House is now waiting for a report from the U.N. team that arrived at the attack site Monday. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.

The U.S. could hit Syria with three days of missile strikes, perhaps beginning Thursday, in an attack meant more to send a message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad than to topple him or cripple his military, senior U.S. officials told NBC News on Tuesday.

The State Department fed the growing drumbeat around the world for a military response to Syria's suspected use of chemical weapons against rebels Aug. 21 near Damascus, saying that while the U.S. intelligence community would release a formal assessment within the week, it was already "crystal clear" that Assad's government was responsible.

Vice President Joe Biden went even further, bluntly telling an American Legion audience in Houston: "Chemical weapons have been used."

Vice President Joe Biden addresses the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the president's response in a speech to the American Legion.

"No one doubts that innocent men, women and children have been the victims of chemical weapons attacks in Syria, and there's no doubt who's responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria: the Syrian regime," Biden said.

White House press secretary Jay Carney repeated Tuesday that the White House isn't considering the deliberate overthrow of Assad.

"The options that we are considering are not about regime change," said during a daily briefing with reporters. "They are about responding to the clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons."

But Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., an influential voice on military matters, pressed the administration to go further, calling for the U.S. and its allies to provide weapons to "the resistance on the ground."

"The important part of this whole situation is, is this just going to be just a retaliatory strike that has no lasting impact or something that changes the momentum on the ground in Syria?" McCain told reporters in Mesa, Ariz., after an event on immigration reform.

Three days of airstrikes planned

Senior officials told NBC News that Defense Department planning had advanced to the point that three days of strikes were anticipated, after which strategists could run an assessment and target what was missed in further rounds.

Many Americans asked about the slaughter in Syria are torn as to how the U.S. should get involved. NBC's Kevin Tibbles reports.

U.S. missile strikes would almost certainly be launched from Navy destroyers or submarines in the Mediterranean Sea. The U.S. in recent days has moved destroyers closer to Syria, which sits on the sea's eastern edge, but that was mostly a symbolic move. U.S. Tomahawk missiles are so precise that they can hit not just buildings but also specific windows, and they could hit Syrian targets from far farther west in the Mediterranean.

Navy officials said four destroyers are lined up ready to strike: the USS Barry, the USS Mahan, the USS Ramage and the USS Gravely.

Tuesday, a fifth guided-missile destroyer, the USS Stout, also entered the Mediterranean, through the Straights of Gibraltar, but officials said it wouldn't take part in any cruise missile attack.

"The four destroyers now in place have more than enough cruise missiles," one official said.

Pressure for a response builds

Underscoring the urgency facing world leaders, British Prime Minister David Cameron called Parliament back from vacation and said it would vote on action Thursday, and U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the U.S. military was "ready to go."

Monday, using forceful language, Secretary of State John Kerry said Syrian chemical attacks were a "moral obscenity" and accused the Assad regime not just of having used chemical agents but also of having covered up the evidence.

On Tuesday, the U.N. said its investigating team in Syria would delay its next outing by a day, to Wednesday. The team came under fire from unidentified snipers Monday on its way to check out the site of a suspected chemical attack near Damascus, the capital.

Having fled the violence within Syria, nearly 2 million refugees, a million of them children, are living in refugee camps in Jordan. NBC News' Ann Curry reports.

In Cairo, the Arab League said it held Assad responsible for the suspected attack. Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other countries condemned the use of unconventional weapons.

Support from the Arab League, even if limited, would provide crucial diplomatic cover for a Western strike on Syria. Action through the U.N. is unlikely because Russia, which supports the Assad regime, has a veto in the Security Council.

Some U.S. allies, notably Britain, have signaled that a limited strike could take place without Security Council approval. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said it would be a "very grave violation of international law," and China said through its government-run news service that the U.S. must refrain from "hasty armed intervention."

In Syria, the top general in the Free Syria Army, the umbrella group comprising rebel factions, told NBC News' Richard Engel that airstrikes were necessary to stop Assad from launching even broader chemical attacks.

"If there is no action, we are afraid that in the coming days, not coming weeks, Bashar will use chemical weapons and chemical materials against very wide areas and, I'm afraid, to kill maybe 20,000 or 30,000 more people," he said.

Eric Baculinao, Baruch Ben-Chorin, Catherine Chomiak, Carrie Dann, Alastair Jamieson, Stacey Klein, Andrea Mitchell, Ron Simeone and Winstone Wilde of NBC News; Reuters; and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

by on Aug. 27, 2013 at 7:13 PM
Replies (31-40):
143myboys9496
by Gold Member on Aug. 28, 2013 at 12:03 AM
2 moms liked this

 

Quoting tooptimistic:

I don't think having a red line, is such a great idea.  Its not like Obama means what he says and says what he means anyway.  They see him as week and think they can push him into reacting.  Sometimes the best response is the one they aren't expecting.  If I were him, I would do nothing..

 

Quoting SallyMJ:

And how long does it really take to determine whether chemical weapons were used? Didn't the UK figure this out on Day 1 or 2?

I don't like the president drawing a "red line" and then not taking action when the red line has been crossed.

 

Quoting tooptimistic:

We should stay out of it.   Doing something now isn't going to help any of the people who have died from the chemical attacks.  If Obama was going to do something, it should have been done before the weapons were used. 

 

 

 

 

 

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Aug. 28, 2013 at 12:08 AM
1 mom liked this

130882 600 Obamas RED LINE in Syria cartoons



Quoting 143myboys9496:

 

Quoting tooptimistic:

I don't think having a red line, is such a great idea.  Its not like Obama means what he says and says what he means anyway.  They see him as week and think they can push him into reacting.  Sometimes the best response is the one they aren't expecting.  If I were him, I would do nothing..


Quoting SallyMJ:

And how long does it really take to determine whether chemical weapons were used? Didn't the UK figure this out on Day 1 or 2?

I don't like the president drawing a "red line" and then not taking action when the red line has been crossed.


Quoting tooptimistic:

We should stay out of it.   Doing something now isn't going to help any of the people who have died from the chemical attacks.  If Obama was going to do something, it should have been done before the weapons were used. 





 



denise3680
by Gold Member on Aug. 28, 2013 at 6:47 AM



Quoting SallyMJ:

I don't know that I'd call it "war mongering" - since both parties do it.  i'd just say we may be overstepping what should be our foreign policy.


Quoting denise3680:

I hope we do not interfere in any other country over there, period.  We cannot afford to pay for another war.  I am sick and tired of this war mongering country always trying to pass our so called morals on other people.  Let them figure their own shit out, we have our own problems to fix right here.



I agree, I know it is both parties but I still feel we are a war mongering country.  I just hope we stay out of it


denise3680
by Gold Member on Aug. 28, 2013 at 6:50 AM



Quoting CABZS:

 I find this so sad.

Just turn a blind eye.  Should we do that when we see someone abusing a chid?


Quoting denise3680:

I hope we do not interfere in any other country over there, period.  We cannot afford to pay for another war.  I am sick and tired of this war mongering country always trying to pass our so called morals on other people.  Let them figure their own shit out, we have our own problems to fix right here.



why is it sad, we turn a blind eye to the children in this country and personally I am sick and tired of wondering what day my husband will get orders to go to war again:/  How about you?>  Do you worry about that?  How about your son or daughter or brother?  You don't worry about that?  Why should we fight yet another war?   am not immune to the death toll voer int eh middle east, but it is not our problem. They need to stand with each other instead of fighting against each other. 


denise3680
by Gold Member on Aug. 28, 2013 at 6:54 AM



Quoting SallyMJ:

Do you mean lives of Syrians, or lives of Americans, for example in Chicago?

I agree that we need to work for structural change in families that make violent crime less likely.


Quoting denise3680:



Quoting gludwig2000:

I'm torn on this whole Syria thing, because while we are not the world's police, how do we stand by and watch such atrocities happen to helpless civilians, women and children? We can not afford another war, but can we afford to stand back and allow such to happen?

thing is we are standing by and watching kids being killed each and every day here in the United States and doing nothing about it, why should we worry about them enough to risk other the lives of our troops? 




You keep bringing up Chicago, Do you think that is the only city that young people are dying in?  You are blind of your hatred of Obama,since Chicago is all on your mind, Sally:/  Yes, I am talking about our children anywhere in the United States, we ignore thema nd then expect self responsibility, but cannot expect the same for another country, why is that?  Our arrogance, as Americans, allows to think that we know what is best for everyoneelse all while our country cannot agree on anything for ourselves.  That is the saddest thing of all.


denise3680
by Gold Member on Aug. 28, 2013 at 6:58 AM



Quoting IandLoveandYou:

Oh that is really not the same thing.



Quoting denise3680:




Quoting gludwig2000:

I'm torn on this whole Syria thing, because while we are not the world's police, how do we stand by and watch such atrocities happen to helpless civilians, women and children? We can not afford another war, but can we afford to stand back and allow such to happen?

thing is we are standing by and watching kids being killed each and every day here in the United States and doing nothing about it, why should we worry about them enough to risk other the lives of our troops? 



why is it not.  Why should we go to war?  Because children are being killed?  Is that really a new concept?  Children are being killed here int he United States, and many by very violent means, Should we go to war with ourselves?  Why should we go over there?  Why are you so willing to put our men and women in uniform in harms way, because we find something morally wrong, but yet there is an entire continent over there not doing anything to stop what is happening in their own back yard?  Why Syria, children in Uganda, Congo, etc... have been getting butchered for years and years, why not go in there also?  Pick and choose:/


PamR
by Platinum Member on Aug. 28, 2013 at 8:49 AM


This is a hard one.  I don't really know - I hate the thought of another military conflict. 

I do think Obama inherited two wars, which is a reflection on the previous president more than him.  The "Peace Prize" is irrelevant to this topic since he basically had to take over what Bush started.

Quoting SallyMJ:

Good question. That's a tough one. Can't say I know the answer. Seemingly a Catch-22. But I believe every problem has a set of alternatives, from which can be chosen a strategy.

I posted this article primarily because I liked the title. It's ironic that our "Nobel Peace Prize President" has engaged in more military conflicts than Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, or Carter, I believe. 

I think he should listen to the military more than he does, for sure. And absolutely get Congressional approval, like Bush did for both Iraq and Afghanistan -  but which Obama tends to skip.

What do you think?


Quoting PamR:

What do you think he should do, Sally?





SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Aug. 28, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Of course I bring up Chicago! - the most dangerous city in America - site of civil wars between citizens.

Why don't you bring it up yourself?

Doesn't knowing Chicago has the most murders - and the most black on black murders in the nation - concern you? Or are you interested in murders of only non-black people? Ironic how so many Chicago politicians want to run the country, but not their own city.

Any murder is the saddest thing of all - whether it is of an American or a foreigner.

My disagreement with Obama's values and policies is just freedom of speech. As are your disagreements with Bush. Disagreement and hate are two different things.

I only see one arrogant person in your rants - you. You might want to move to one of those totalitarian countries you like. They would love to have you and your tax revenue. Better than freedom any day, huh?  :)

Ha ha.


Quoting denise3680:



Quoting SallyMJ:

Do you mean lives of Syrians, or lives of Americans, for example in Chicago?

I agree that we need to work for structural change in families that make violent crime less likely.


Quoting denise3680:



Quoting gludwig2000:

I'm torn on this whole Syria thing, because while we are not the world's police, how do we stand by and watch such atrocities happen to helpless civilians, women and children? We can not afford another war, but can we afford to stand back and allow such to happen?

thing is we are standing by and watching kids being killed each and every day here in the United States and doing nothing about it, why should we worry about them enough to risk other the lives of our troops? 




You keep bringing up Chicago, Do you think that is the only city that young people are dying in?  You are blind of your hatred of Obama,since Chicago is all on your mind, Sally:/  Yes, I am talking about our children anywhere in the United States, we ignore thema nd then expect self responsibility, but cannot expect the same for another country, why is that?  Our arrogance, as Americans, allows to think that we know what is best for everyoneelse all while our country cannot agree on anything for ourselves.  That is the saddest thing of all.




SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Aug. 28, 2013 at 12:49 PM

You are referring to two wars Congress approved.

What about the Libya Arab Spring raids; Benghazi; Fast & Furious; the drone strikes in Pakistan and the US; the IRS, DHS, and DOJ scandals  - where Congress was not even asked?

I assume you approve of the Constitution?

The mention of the Nobel Peace Prize was ironic - since Obama hadn't then or now done anything inspiring peace.


Quoting PamR:


This is a hard one.  I don't really know - I hate the thought of another military conflict. 

I do think Obama inherited two wars, which is a reflection on the previous president more than him.  The "Peace Prize" is irrelevant to this topic since he basically had to take over what Bush started.

Quoting SallyMJ:

Good question. That's a tough one. Can't say I know the answer. Seemingly a Catch-22. But I believe every problem has a set of alternatives, from which can be chosen a strategy.

I posted this article primarily because I liked the title. It's ironic that our "Nobel Peace Prize President" has engaged in more military conflicts than Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, or Carter, I believe. 

I think he should listen to the military more than he does, for sure. And absolutely get Congressional approval, like Bush did for both Iraq and Afghanistan -  but which Obama tends to skip.

What do you think?


Quoting PamR:

What do you think he should do, Sally?







denise3680
by Gold Member on Aug. 28, 2013 at 1:02 PM



Quoting SallyMJ:

Of course I bring up Chicago! - the most dangerous city in America - site of civil wars between citizens.

Why don't you bring it up yourself?

Doesn't knowing Chicago has the most murders - and the most black on black murders in the nation - concern you? Or are you interested in murders of only non-black people? Ironic how so many Chicago politicians want to run the country, but not their own city.

Any murder is the saddest thing of all - whether it is of an American or a foreigner.

My disagreement with Obama's values and policies is just freedom of speech. As are your disagreements with Bush. Disagreement and hate are two different things.

I only see one arrogant person in your rants - you. You might want to move to one of those totalitarian countries you like. They would love to have you and your tax revenue. Better than freedom any day, huh?  :)

Ha ha.


Quoting denise3680:



Quoting SallyMJ:

Do you mean lives of Syrians, or lives of Americans, for example in Chicago?

I agree that we need to work for structural change in families that make violent crime less likely.


Quoting denise3680:



Quoting gludwig2000:

I'm torn on this whole Syria thing, because while we are not the world's police, how do we stand by and watch such atrocities happen to helpless civilians, women and children? We can not afford another war, but can we afford to stand back and allow such to happen?

thing is we are standing by and watching kids being killed each and every day here in the United States and doing nothing about it, why should we worry about them enough to risk other the lives of our troops? 




You keep bringing up Chicago, Do you think that is the only city that young people are dying in?  You are blind of your hatred of Obama,since Chicago is all on your mind, Sally:/  Yes, I am talking about our children anywhere in the United States, we ignore thema nd then expect self responsibility, but cannot expect the same for another country, why is that?  Our arrogance, as Americans, allows to think that we know what is best for everyoneelse all while our country cannot agree on anything for ourselves.  That is the saddest thing of all.




you see, I tried having a civil debate with you but you take this personal, typical:/  Chicago has always been a high crime city, that is not new and neither did it start with Obama.  Washington D.C, Los Angelos, Richmond, Tampa, Atlanta, Nashville, St. Louis, etc.... are also cities where alot of crime goes on, it gets ignored because the argument is always, especially with you guys, that it is Obama's fault.  That is simply not true and you know it.  Arrognace of Americans, hmmm I wonder how you got that I was talking about you and not an entire country, and you call me arrogant:/   Crime rise is a concern to me, but that concern did not just start with the Trayvon Martin trial.  

The part in red is your worst reply to date, it is not even worthy of a reply.  Now that was just dumb:/

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)