John Kerry Is Now Telling Us In Gruesome Detail About The Chemical Weapons Attack

[ichkeria]

Or is he just a very good liar?
So far he hasn't mentioned the issue of the vote in the UK parliament last night.

Does anyone opposed - for perfectly respectable reasons - to Britain's involvement in any response have a problem with the US and France acting oerhaps alone?

[ichkeria]

" the side with more weapons uses more weapons. But that's to do with money and realpolitik, not morality. Both sides it seems will use them if they have them. "

Well you can't really go by anything other than what people actually do, can you.
"best answer" is still up for grabs btw for anyone who feels like answering thew actual question. So far I think only sqad has done that :-)
I think my answer for now is "yes" you will be disappointed to know, but dependent on a few things.

[Zacs-Master]

This is a bit of a moralistic trap of a question isn't it? To answer No would result in being pounced upon by certain ABers accusing one of hippocrisy and double standards.

[ichkeria]

There is no trap being set by me.
I'm not looking to pounce on anyone. If others with to do so that is up to them :-)
Actually I meant "no" when I said "yes" - although as I wasn't really opposed in the first place I suppose I don't really count. But

[LazyGun]

I am going for best answer award then, if it is still up for grabs :)

I am opposed to the UKs involvement. I am glad that the vote went against the government, and I am not at all worried that the US and France and Turkey and Australia all seem to think that a limited military action is required and will be effective.

I thought Kerrys speech was impassioned, and, realpolitik aside, forgetting for the moment any geo-political motivations that may contribute to the desire to strike at Syria, it was difficult not to be moved by his passion and some of what he said. But ultimately it still boils down to not much evidence or certainty, no clear objective, no guarantee that a limited strike will be a salutary and humbling lesson for Assad, no prospect that those already killed and injured would get any kind of justice or redress by this military action.

[Zacs-Master]

Ooh you big hippocrite Lazy that's double standards that is, not wanting us to go but letting someone else do our dirty work. So you don't really care about the people of Syria, you just don't want us to spend our money and risk our soldiers lives.

[Zacs-Master]

See.. I told you that would happen.

[ChillDoubt]

IMHO people have lost sight of what this mission will be, particularly the British public. Obama has no desire whatsoever to get embroiled in a long-standing involvement in Syria. His actions would be a 2/3 days strike involving 20/30 missiles maximum, hitting Assad's capabilities in a sort of 'now play nice' initiative, nothing more than that.
In all probability it will limit his (Assad) potential and allow forces opposed to him to at least get a foothold in key areas. As he (Obama) said, it is not his task to bring about a regime change, that is for the Syrians to thrash out, however unpalatable it may be. It will not happen overnight and may take 10 years, or even longer.
It will though allow those opposed to Assad to potentially force him into some sort of dialogue or talks, which is what the West ultimately wants.
The UK are fed up of seeing their troops brought home in coffins (and rightly so) or their Servicemen increasingly in the news with missing limbs etc.
They have reservations about mission creep, which invariably is a possibility but I believe that UK troops would never have set foot on Syrian soil anyway (we do not presently have the capability), which had Cameron made a public caveat would have possibly ensured his motion carried in last week's vote.
His failure to make such limitations ensured the loss in the Commons.

It is now somewhat decidedly ironic that the US's biggest ally in all of this will be the 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' and the UK has indeed been seriously diminished, as Lord Ashdown says.

Just my take on things, don't flame me please!!

[youngmafbog]

Many of you on here know that often I support military action, including Blairs excursions.

However, we were clearly lied to in the past so this time round I'm afraid I just dont think we are getting the whole truth.

Obama dug a whole when he said there would be retribution if chemical weapons were used. It is certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that one of the rebel factions caused this. There are ex-military in the rebels and I am sure some of them are mor than capable of handling such weapons.

Now chemical weapons have been used Obama has to save face an bomb the motherf***rs. It is not the right thing to do and will play directly into Al Quadar.

[ichkeria]

Sorry LazyGun, but ChillDoubt gets it for now, even if strictly speaking it doesn't really answer the question, but I've given up on that now :-)

[Gromit]

// Or is he [John Kerry] just a very good liar?

He is not lying. He is not telling the truth either. All he said was "we know they did it". Without any proof or evidence, that is meaningless.

// Does anyone oppose.. the US and France acting oerhaps alone? //
There is a mistake in the question. There will be a coalition of 15+ countries involved, including Saudi, Turkey and Qatar. We may still be involved by giving them use of Cyprus to stage the attacks. The fact that the UK and Germany will not be dropping bombs will not make any difference to the success or failure of the mission.

[Sqad]

Gromit

\\\\ All he said was "we know they did it". Without any proof or evidence, that is meaningless. \\\

Just because he hasn't divulged it to the world, it doesn't mean that he doesn't have proof or evidence.

[Gromit]

But it does mean we cannot tell if he is telling the truth or not.

Sqad, You should listen to me because I know.

[ichkeria]

"Just because he hasn't divulged it to the world, it doesn't mean that he doesn't have proof or evidence. "

Exactly. And Mr Kerry is either lying or telling the truth - it must be one or the other!
I really hope the Americans are able to produce some sort of credible evidence, and shove it under Putin's face.

[Gromit]

// I really hope the Americans are able to produce some sort of credible evidence, and shove it under Putin's face. //

They won't because they haven't got proof.

[ichkeria]

Of course they have proof. And, as I say, I hope they show it. Because I agree that without showing something to back it up many will still remain cynical. Mind you it will need to be some sort of amazing material to convince some people :-)

[jno]

depends what sort of proof you think Joe Public would want. In the case of WMD he got solid government claims, widely accepted by mass media, and it was all piffle. No wonder he's gronw more sceptical.

This time around it does seem as if there were chemical weapons used... but by whom? Kerry thinks he knows who did it, but just how can he tell who was responsible? Has he got irrefutable evidence, or is it just (as it was with Bush and Blair) the wish proving father to the thought?

Doubtless he will tell congressional leaders something; but they too may be more sceptical this time than last.

[ichkeria]

The proof may be difficult to present - it no doubt comes from comint, and would almost certainly need to be sanitised or re-presented. For example, they have recordings of actual, unencrypted Syrian voice traffic, which they could perhaps play to whoever was deemed appropriate. Or it might be more sensitive than that: they might have a transcript of a decrypted voice channel which would have to be presented as a typed document - and it's not hard to guess what friend Putin would say about that: "You just made it up" ...