Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Syrian forces may have used gas without Assad's permission: paper [View all]leveymg
(36,418 posts)42. In that case, we cannot agree to this being done in our names, and will oppose this war.
Unlike Vietnam and the Iraq War, the Admin. can't even claim that a "Silent Majority' supports them. LBJ was also otherwise a good President with a terrible legacy. Does Obama want that to ruin the rest of his term as President - if he goes ahead with this, does he even care?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
81 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Even Obama now acknowledged that this appears possibly to have been the case at the G20 presser
leveymg
Sep 2013
#28
The source for the 4th Div. rumours are DEBKA, and that appears to have been disinformation.
leveymg
Sep 2013
#34
What - the use of VX or its recipe? Syria has plenty of it, but there have been no reported use.
leveymg
Sep 2013
#53
Then the absolute worst is if he falls and it all gets dispersed which we want to contribute to.
dkf
Sep 2013
#4
Will you trust the rebels more, given that they have a substantial Al Qaeda component?
daleo
Sep 2013
#47
How safe will it be if the rebels prevail and then have control of the chemical weapons themselves?
VanillaRhapsody
Sep 2013
#54
We can eliminate the chemicals from the equation....that is one thing...
VanillaRhapsody
Sep 2013
#68
Fair is fair - then any strike against his forces also will have not have his permission. I do not
24601
Sep 2013
#6
then that is almost worse. Assad has lost control of the military. If this is the case he needs to
KittyWampus
Sep 2013
#7
Wow, you think Assad stepping down results in better control of CW...how does that work?
dkf
Sep 2013
#13
Or, it *could mean that after 4 months of pestering he said "What the hell, go for it."
Turborama
Sep 2013
#63
The officer may have been relieved of his command, permanently. We have the intercepts from that
leveymg
Sep 2013
#31
In that case, we cannot agree to this being done in our names, and will oppose this war.
leveymg
Sep 2013
#42
This is a slow-simmering regional war waiting to boil over with a little extra fuel. We can provide
leveymg
Sep 2013
#58
After 2003, we have a well-founded fear of lies about limited wars that get us into longer wars.
leveymg
Sep 2013
#64
I read they have given up on the theory that it was the brother. Will see if I can find the source.
dkf
Sep 2013
#18
Brutal methods are hardly unique to Assad in this war. Both sides have to be held accountable,
leveymg
Sep 2013
#45
So, why did we, the Brits, and particularly the French organize exile groups and rebellion?
leveymg
Sep 2013
#72
Of course, the entire operation was predicated on regime overreaction. These things always are.
leveymg
Sep 2013
#74
I'm sure no one was more effective at communicating to Assad the consequences of use of chem weapons
leveymg
Sep 2013
#77
Americans refuse to be victimized again, in the same way, by the same set of deceivers waging the
leveymg
Sep 2013
#50
Regime change by other means. Another Admin., another domino. How is this different, really?
leveymg
Sep 2013
#70
And so then launching more strikes could transform the army into a group of chemical-armed militias.
David__77
Sep 2013
#36