General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama: Assad Shooting At American Planes Would Lead To His Overthrow
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-assad-shooting-american-planes-141200579.htmlIf Assad's troops f ired at American planes entering Syrian airspace, "Obama said he would order American forces to wipe out Syria’s air defense system," Baker reports. "He went on to say that such an action by Mr. Assad would lead to his overthrow, according to one account."
Taking out Assad is part of the neocons Playbook for the Middle East.
The chances our planes don't get shot at is zero. Knowing for certain who fired is not always possible.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
msongs
(67,347 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)The Assad secretly has no problem with US bombing ISIS because he is not complaining loud enough or Assad allowed ISIS to grow so the US will bomb it conspiracy theorists show up.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)but some people here have already come up to complex conspiracy theories that claim that this is somehow a plot by Assad to get the west/NATO to bomb ISIS terrorists. This same way Russia supposedly plotted to remove a democratic govt that was semi favorable to it to one that outright hostile to her.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)So, what exactly does Assad have to lose here? Either he gets war with the United States, or... he gets war with the United States.
Obama is talking about launching a very clear war of aggression here.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Wanted to bomb him last year, now arms rebels who have a truce with IS/ISIL/ISIS to overthrow Assad.
This seems a multi-pronged approach to removing Assad. Then what ?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)completely in favor of war and more deaths of many more innocent people?
That in your view diplomacy is dead and war is our only answer? That since they are way over there, bomb them and let gawd sort it out?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)paid back to him in the form of death, preferably without additional loss of life.
There is no diplomacy with someone who commits a certain level of atrocity----ask the people of Lebanon about the occupation he ran there.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)And I see Iraq in shambles. Libya, too.
And until there was a drought in Syria, there was a general peace. And remember that bush placed Syria on its axis of evil, PNAC targets.
And now our involvement of training and equipping the Syrian opposition is part of ISIL.
Round and round the bloody evil warmongers go. Going for that golden ring they are, screaming: 'Death to all' who get in their evil way.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Hariri, sooner or later. He will pay for what his occupation forces did in Lebanon. He will reap what he has sown.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)He's talking about all-out war against a nation, if that nation's military acts to defend the nation from an act of aggression from the United States.
Lots of people need to face war crimes trials. Assad is among them. so is most of Israel's government, and pretty much everyone with authority in Egypt right now. The emir of Bahrain committed crimes against humanity to butcher - and in many cases literally rape - his own people. he did so with the blessing - and armament -of the obama administration.
So let's not pretend that the president is on a high road
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)like OBL....didn't really care who got him, why, or how. Just glad that fucker is dead.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Along with the further empowerment of IS and its analogue groups. This conflict spills beyond Syria, into Lebanon and reigniting a fight with Israel. Which just splashes blood further around.
Because you have a boner for seeing Assad's head on a stick.
You really think "I don't care" is an argument worth making, too.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)surprised that you would use such talk to me, I wonder how you would respond to my referencing your genitals in my reply?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)it's just that when someone on the internet is clearly huffing and groaning with a hand in their pants over the thought of killing someone regardless of the consequences that would result, I unfortunately tend to assume that the person is male. I suppose that's little sexist of me. So I'm sorry, I'll try to be more gender-inclusive when I'm dealing with someone slobbering over the idea of exacerbating a middle eastern war for their own self-gratification via assassination.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)you tolerate the presence of a male on this board who wrote such a thing to you?
I really do not know why you have decided it is appropriate to write about me, and to me in such a manner, but I find it sexist and appalling. What a poor example you set, as a feminist.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Much less with such obvious... gusto. and admitted utter lack of concern for the inevitable ramifications of the killing.
Yet, here you are. My horizons have been expanded.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)No.
It will throw Syria into complete anarchy as we have seen in Iraq and Libya. It will empower the already-powerful radical groups operating in Syria. We will be unable to secure the military and government resources of the Damascus government; these will fall into the hands of assorted "rebel groups." None of these groups are freedom-loving sons of liberty seeking wholesome liberal western democracy. Most are butchers and freaks on par with IS, and just not as resourceful. You would change that latter part. Boom, they've got their hands on al lthat fun stuff Assad had, and we can't do anything about it.
What then? Well, after general carnage in Syria - a three way fight, with the US and its "rebel" allies slaughtering a few hundred or thousand Syrians, and the Syrian government fighting those two factions - and probably with the rebels shooting at us as well - it's likely that the most powerful groups in the equation - IS and al-Nusra, will consolidate and sweep up the rest of the rebel groups, either wiping them our or absorbing them. Congratulations on handing the crazies the keys to Syria and all its military resources, msanthrope.
What next? Lebanon. Lebanon's military is the weakest military in the region, and IS no doubt sees its borders as artificial as they do Iraq's. Hezbollah will fight, but lacking the resources, it will lose. Lots and lots of Lebanese will die. especially once Israel gets involved, and yes, Israel will get involved, because it does not want either Hezbollah or IS-types to be ascendant on its north frontier. And this is before considering any attempt to re-take Golan by the new Syrian regime you've installed.
or maybe those arms and resources will go back into Iraq, msanthrope. it'd be a good time for IS to break their truce with the Kurds, and hte sudden influx of weaponry and manpower will have bad results there. The Kurds fall back into Turkey, both from Syria and Iraq, the fight follows, and Turkey is obligated to get involved. The war expands north. Suddenly it's a NATO issue, and won't that be fun!
And of course we need to think about Jordan. As Amman is a benefactor of IS and its attendant groups, Jordan's frontiers have been nice and peaceful. I don't imagine that an empowered and emboldened IS will care much about that, and after Lebanon, Jordan's the kicking-dog. And just like Lebanon, a Jordan on the verge of collapse brings Israel in. Israel has said as much, in fact.
Every possible outcome from toppling Damascus leads to the empowerment of the murderous fundy-types, and from there the expansion of war and death through the region, like a metastasizing cancer. Every possible outcome, msanthrope. It's a hideously bad idea no matter what angle you approach it from.
As repulsive as it is, the US needs to work with Damascus instead of threatening it. Assuming the US' goal is to prevent more destruction and death - that's what I hope the goal is, don't you? Because as gross as Assad is? He's better than what would happen if his government fell, and his government is currently able to be a very useful tool in securing a stable situation that greatly reduces those risks.
But no. Go on howling for more war and blood and carnage like a damned doofus.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)our very own Made In the U.S. of A. (tm) brand of War Criminals...Bush I - Bush II - Cheney - Rumsfeld - Condeleza Rice - Kissinger...oh I could go on & on, but I know you know all that too.
karynnj
(59,495 posts)These comments come from a background availability that the NYT wrote up as well - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/world/middleeast/paths-to-war-then-and-now-haunt-obama.html?_r=0 Note that the quotes in the op are Baker's, not Obama's. Here are the four most relevant 4 paragraphs:
But while Mr. Obama sees bolstering the new Iraqi government as his path to ultimate success on that side of the border, he struck his guests as less certain about the endgame on the Syrian side, where he has called for Mr. Assad to step down and must now rely on the same moderate Syrian rebels he refused to arm in the past.
Mr. Obama acknowledged it would be a long campaign, one complicated by a dearth of intelligence about possible targets on the Syrian side of the border and one that may not be immediately satisfying. “This isn’t going to be fireworks over Baghdad,” he said.
Asked by one of the columnists what he would do if his strategy did not work and he had to escalate further, Mr. Obama rejected the premise. “I’m not going to anticipate failure at this point,” he said.
He made clear the intricacy of the situation, though, as he contemplated the possibility that Mr. Assad might order his forces to fire at American planes entering Syrian airspace. If he dared to do that, Mr. Obama said he would order American forces to wipe out Syria’s air defense system, which he noted would be easier than striking ISIS because its locations are better known. He went on to say that such an action by Mr. Assad would lead to his overthrow, according to one account.
As to the op here, the addition that "someone" will shoot down a plane. Consider that - to my knowledge - there have been no reports of the rebels shooting down Assad's planes even as they drop barrel bombs. This kind of suggests that they have not received the weapons to do so - in spite of their many requests.
Not to mention, parse what Obama actually is reported to have said. He is not saying that WE would overthrow Assad. The point is that if his air power is eliminated, his government will be overthrown.
As to another poster referring to it being US policy to overthrow him. It is US policy that he has to leave power because of the crimes he committed. They have also said the solution must be political or diplomatic. That suggests that he could be replaced - even by someone else in his party.
As to the claim that the proposed strikes last year were designed to overthrow him, EVERY comment by the Obama administration said that was not the goal. It was the goal of McCain and others who were very angry with Obama and others because they were carefully speaking of just a targeted strike that would (hopefully) make Assad feel that there was too high a price in using chemical weapons. (NOTE - DU as a whole seemed to not believe Obama and thus assumed that he wanted to do everything McCain spoke of.)
At this point, I am looking at comments that the Obama administration has made, that while claiming they will not COORDINATE with Iran or Syria, indicate that they will "deconflict" and that they are smart enough to stay out of each other's way. Nothing I have read suggests that the US would be unhappy if Syria goes after ISIS itself in Syria.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)In his address on Wednesday, he announced that he would not be respecting Syria's borders and airspace. Do you know what it's called, when you fly into someone else's country without permission and drop bomb? That's called an act of war. Also, in the same address - one paragraph later! - he announced that he would be investing more money and training into Syria's "rebels" and openly stated the goal is to overthrow Assad, in so doing. And now he is saying that if Syria dares fire on American fighters violating Syrian airspace and dropping bombs on Syria, he'll go to war on Syria.
Which, if Syria is firing on us, we have already done.
Cayenne
(480 posts)Is this what it's about, revenge? So how many innocents would have to satisfy this revenge. ANY innocents we kill will be war crimes because we do not have a mandate for this war of aggression.
Further in context of ISIS, he is in the best position to fight them yet we will bomb him to.
This will only lead to more shitty things.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)and we have a shitstormload of evidence regarding those "unforeseen consequences"- I'd join you in your sentiments. The problem is that overthrowing Assad would likely lead to an even worse situation in Syria and neighboring countries.
madville
(7,403 posts)Assad probably learned his lesson from the last one he crossed......
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)stooge have we selected to replace Assad?
cali
(114,904 posts)It's hardly the only or even the leading factor in this.
aikoaiko
(34,162 posts)On Mon Sep 15, 2014, 08:55 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Woop-woop...there it is!!! The israeli lobby earns it's keep. Oh, btw...what
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5537252
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Blaming everything - Obama threatening Syria included - on AIPAC is the worst type of anti-Semitism. US foreign policy is decided by the US. The meme that Israel controls the US is an offensive, and inaccurate meme.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Sep 15, 2014, 09:00 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think the camps and ovens of the holocaust "is the worst type of anti-Semitism". Alert fails at its core.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: let it play out - it all needs to be discussed and have a bright line shined on it.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Poster expressed a viewpoint. Dispute it, but do not censor it. They are not alone in thinking the US-Israeli relationship needs examination.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Gotta distinguish between antisemitism and beating up on AIPAC. While AIPAC is probably not guilty of everything it's accused of, a discussion is legitimate, not antisemitic.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No proof ( nor even any evidence) that blaming AIPAC is the equivalent of blaming Jews.
Alert mechanism should not be used as a substitute for debate.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)there is turmoil there.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Would be flying bombers over the US.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Notice cheney has stfu? McPain-in-the-ass, too?
That the republicans as a whole are left muttering to themselves? And here, just before the elections?
Obama did this the last time there was talk about bombing Syria and we didn't, but it sure had the republicans all-a-mutter.
God, I hope I'm right........
KoKo
(84,711 posts)I hope you are right, also. We don't need Obama going off the rails and bombing out Assad. I really wish he hadn't said that if it's a direct quote. 
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)Hermann Göring during the Nuremberg trials:
Göring: Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)I hate this shit. 
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)The "founding fathers" would be proud of the mass genocide the military industrial complex was able to accomplish in just a few years against the indigenous people in the middle east using these for hire ISIS mercenaries.
The plan has always been to supply them with training, weapons and money then set them loose to destabilize countries and slaughter millions for a few years then come in with tanks, drones and bombs to finish off whats left while making an insane profit from the weapons and conquered land.
They're going to blow up whatever defense is left (this includes Assad) so these ISIS mercenaries can quickly move in and take over like in Libya.
Why have "boots on the ground" when you have thousands of ruthless mercs already there?
Video: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/syria-arming-the-rebels/
REBEL COMMANDER: [through interpreter] They asked for a group of 80 or 90 fighters from our command, and we headed towards the Turkish border.
NARRATOR: Based on their accounts, we retraced their journey across the border into Turkey. After a 14-hour drive, they say they arrived in the Turkish capital of Ankara and were brought to a hotel. They were kept inside and questioned by Americans, who would only say they were from the military. But the rebels believed they were from the CIA.
REBEL COMMANDER: [through interpreter] We met them for six to seven hours a day. It was medical examinations, questions for each person individually, like, “When did you join the uprising?” And “What was your profession or military rank?”
They had tracked our work and asked us to verify information about attacks we carried out, such as who was present and how many men were martyred. Your responses have to match the entire group’s.
NARRATOR: A week later, the rebels say they were surprised by what happened next.
REBEL COMMANDER: [through interpreter] We only found out where we were going to be trained on the last day in Ankara, when the Americans said goodbye and that, “Tomorrow, we’ll see you in Qatar.”
NARRATOR: They were flown 1,500 miles away to Doha, the capital of Qatar, which is a key U.S. ally in the Persian Gulf.
REBEL COMMANDER: [through interpreter] We drove for about two, two-and-a-half hours to reach the training ground. It was close to the Saudi border. We didn’t know where we were because it was desert all around.
NARRATOR: Over the course of three weeks, they say they were trained by Americans at a base in the desert guarded by Qatari soldiers. Like many of the rebels who were sent to Qatar, 21-year-old Hussein had never had any previous military training.
HUSSEIN: [through interpreter] They trained us to ambush regime or enemy vehicles and cut off the road. They also trained us on how to attack a vehicle, raid it, retrieve information or weapons and munitions, and how to finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush.
NARRATOR: The rebels were outfitted with brand-new uniforms and boots.
MUHAMMAD ALI: [subtitles] Those trousers are from them, right?
HUSSEIN: [subtitles] Yeah. We got these boots in training.
MUHAMMAD ALI: The Americans were warning the fighters not to tell this story at all. And even at one point, they told them, “If in any case this story will be published, we will stop funding you or arming you.”
NARRATOR: The CIA and the State Department declined to comment on the fighters’ accounts of arming and training, though the Obama administration has said it plans to step up support to the rebels, and there have been other reports the CIA is running covert training out of Jordan.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)
eridani
(51,907 posts)As bad as Assad is, he's a better deal.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)This is just ridiculous rhetoric as you can see.
Violation of sovereign airspace is violation of sovereign airspace.. Name two countries that do this consistently...... Israel and the US
I'm sick of these war mongering solutions to international problems, we can do better than this.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)Rhetoric! !
newfie11
(8,159 posts)
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Almost like it was setting up the scenario, for future application. Geez, this is The Twilight Zone.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Yeah compare Russia to America and how many wars/invasions in the last 15 years has each started.
The boogyman is American politicians.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)or they do understand and they have another agenda. Nobody could be that stupid.
So the leader of the US is going to send US military aircraft into the airspace of a SOVREIGN NATION and they're not supposed to defend themselves??
I guess as long as Obama does it, it's OK.
Talk about hubris!!
newfie11
(8,159 posts)We have invaded countries for their oil and this is an continuance, wake the hell up America!
If we start bombing what's left of the ME this will be all for oil. Do you really think this country (America) has nothing to do with arming the multifactions in the ME? The CIA has been doing this in SOuth America for years.
We are paying for the manufactor of the guns ISIS has.
If anyone wants to go after someone for this mess look to the MIC, CIA, Bush, Cheney, and their friendly oligarchs with bags of money drooling for ME oil.
They don't give a shit about the misery/death they cause.
Read our history if you can find the truth, this is a set up for oil.
Do u all not remember the 7 countries in 5 years video, hello, THIS IS PART OF IT!
GeorgeGist
(25,311 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Göring
malaise
(268,672 posts)It would be a certain violation of international law.
cali
(114,904 posts)President Barack Obama used his prime-time address Wednesday night to announce that the United States will expand its airstrikes against the militant group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS), while also preparing to move into Syria to do so as well. When American forces begin carrying out this new strategy, however, they will be doing so while relying on a nearly thirteen-year old document as the basis for its domestic legal authority.
This became clear when a senior administration official told reporters last night ahead of Obama’s address “we do not believe the President needs that new authorization” to wage a lengthy campaign against ISIS. “We believe that he can rely on the 2001 AUMF as statutory authority for the military airstrike operations he is directing against ISIL,” the official continued, using the government’s preferred acronym for the group. “And we believe that he has the authority to continue these operations beyond 60 days, consistent with the War Powers Resolution, because the operations are authorized by a statute.”
That determination came as a surprise to many, based on the complicated relationship between al Qaeda, the original target of the AUMF, and ISIS. Passed to allow President George W. Bush to go after both al Qaeda and the Taliban who hosted it, the 2001 AUMF was written in an extremely broad fashion to allow the executive branch to target anyone associated with the 9/11 attack. Since then, it has been used as the justification not just for the war in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban, but also to strike out at al-Qaeda and “associated groups” in such countries as Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.
Under the logic applied by the White House, the fact that matters most is that ISIS began its life as Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the branch set up following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. While the groups prospects waned for a time, the war across the border in Syria gave the organization new life as it took advantage of the chaos to regroup, recruit, and reorient itself. Currently ISIS is listed on the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization list as the “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (formerly al-Qa’ida in Iraq),” with the site clearly saying that the group had been on the list since 2004.
<snip>
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/09/11/3566166/why-obama-thinks-he-can-bomb-isis-in-syria-without-asking-congress/
In your opinion, should he be considered a war criminal for issuing such an order?
malaise
(268,672 posts)Look the West appear to be immune to war crimes.
The West has slaughtered over a million Iraqis but I hear the UN saying that ISIS is guilty war crimes - not a word on those Iraqis slaughtered during an illegal invasion and occupation.
840high
(17,196 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)This is feeling like the run up to the Iraq War all over again.
Somebody already wrote the script.
pampango
(24,692 posts)I wonder if he warned Iraq's government beforehand not to shoot at his planes.
