Syria Gas Attack- What Now?

[AWP]

No boots on the ground? All well and good now, so what happens if(God forbid) a US jet was to be downed inside Syria?

The guys who would go pick up the pilot are Air Force and no one has vowed "No slippers on the ground"....

 

[Kaboom]

I'm curious, where does the hate for the USA come from?

Well i guess one thing is the big love, many have for Russia as they were a great power when Modern Greek was forming up, being located so near to us and having the same religion we have.

But the major problem every person i know (and i mean it) have with the USA is that there is a popular belief that in many occasions, 2 most notably, while we were in conflict with Turkey, the US picked their side. I'll keep it as short as possible.

1st the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. We wanted to unite Cyprus to us but there was a (minor) Turkish population on the island. Turkey took advantage of this and invaded the island, many citizens were killed and to this day they hold the north part of the island. The UN is looking for some kind of solution to the problem, no one is satisfied, and the blame is on the UN for not forcing Turkey out of the island.

2nd the military conflict at Imia in 1996. Couple of uninhabited islands that both countries had on their maps marked as theirs. A turkish shipwreck near them is all you need. We had Greek Special forces sneeking in and raising our flag, followed by their Turskish counterparts doing the same. Both navies sent in warships and a Greek helicopter was downed in unknown circumstances. (I guess) US said enough is enough and ordered both countries to back off. That's it really. I have heard stories about how the US goverment changed their maps from Imia (the Greek name of the islands) to "owner undetermined" or something like that but i don't have a clue if this stands true.

There is also a popular belief that the Greek military junta that ruler from 1967 to 1974 was backed by the USA.

I'm way off topic, but thought it would be better to give you a little background.

 

[TLDR20]

Well i guess one thing is the big love, many have for Russia as they were a great power when Modern Greek was forming up, being located so near to us and having the same religion we have.

But the major problem every person i know (and i mean it) have with the USA is that there is a popular belief that in many occasions, 2 most notably, while we were in conflict with Turkey, the US picked their side. I'll keep it as short as possible.

1st the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. We wanted to unite Cyprus to us but there was a (minor) Turkish population on the island. Turkey took advantage of this and invaded the island, many citizens were killed and to this day they hold the north part of the island. The UN is looking for some kind of solution to the problem, no one is satisfied, and the blame is on the UN for not forcing Turkey out of the island.

2nd the military conflict at Imia in 1996. Couple of uninhabited islands that both countries had on their maps marked as theirs. A turkish shipwreck near them is all you need. We had Greek Special Forces sneeking in and raising our flag, followed by their Turskish counterparts doing the same. Both navies sent in warships and a Greek helicopter was downed in unknown circumstances. (I guess) US said enough is enough and ordered both countries to back off. That's it really. I have heard stories about how the US goverment changed their maps from Imia (the Greek name of the islands) to "owner undetermined" or something like that but i don't have a clue if this stands true.

There is also a popular belief that the Greek military junta that ruler from 1967 to 1974 was backed by the USA.

I'm way off topic, but thought it would be better to give you a little background.

I didn't know we had beef.

 

[pardus]

Well i guess one thing is the big love, many have for Russia as they were a great power when Modern Greek was forming up, being located so near to us and having the same religion we have.

But the major problem every person i know (and i mean it) have with the USA is that there is a popular belief that in many occasions, 2 most notably, while we were in conflict with Turkey, the US picked their side. I'll keep it as short as possible.

1st the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. We wanted to unite Cyprus to us but there was a (minor) Turkish population on the island. Turkey took advantage of this and invaded the island, many citizens were killed and to this day they hold the north part of the island. The UN is looking for some kind of solution to the problem, no one is satisfied, and the blame is on the UN for not forcing Turkey out of the island.

2nd the military conflict at Imia in 1996. Couple of uninhabited islands that both countries had on their maps marked as theirs. A turkish shipwreck near them is all you need. We had Greek Special Forces sneeking in and raising our flag, followed by their Turskish counterparts doing the same. Both navies sent in warships and a Greek helicopter was downed in unknown circumstances. (I guess) US said enough is enough and ordered both countries to back off. That's it really. I have heard stories about how the US goverment changed their maps from Imia (the Greek name of the islands) to "owner undetermined" or something like that but i don't have a clue if this stands true.

There is also a popular belief that the Greek military junta that ruler from 1967 to 1974 was backed by the USA.

I'm way off topic, but thought it would be better to give you a little background.

Thanks, I appreciate the insight.

On the 1st point, why is the USA blamed for the UN doing/not doing something?
On the second point, I just had a look at the United States Geological Society online maps and the two islands are named Imia Limnia Dio and Imia Limnia Ena.

Another question, what do Greeks think of the British?

 

[goon175]

If you are referring to my post, let me clarify. If the leaders of this country namely the Senators that seem to hot to be involved in Syria had children and/or in the military that may be directly involved in this action. And I mean directly, not a desk job somewhere. I wonder how anxious they would be to move forward in Syria under the circumstances?

1) From what I have seen, no one in congress is too keen on getting into Syria. Don't mistake this for being a cheerleader for congress - I'm not, but I don't think many are in much favor for this.

2) I can think of two very influential congressman who have sons serving in the military - Tim Johnson and John McCain. I know there are more, I just don't know them off the top of my head. The majority of the congressman who have children in the military are not necessarily in direct combat positions, but some are. This isn't surprising though, as the overwhelming majority of jobs in the military are either combat support or combat service support.

Again, I'm not a cheerleader for congress, but I do think credit should be given where credit is due. Also, just because you are not serving in a direct combat position does not mean you are necessarily safe - as we all know.

 

[Chopstick]

First of all, I respect the office of the President of the United States. That being said, I have no respect for the current President. That is my right as a US Citizen, Freedom of Speech and thought is it not? Any President that refuses to listen to the will of his or her people should cause one pause, indeed. To be arbitrarily compelled to refer to Obama as "PRESIDENT OBAMA" by site rule is a little silly in my opinion and I see may examples all over the site where no one else's comments are called on the carpet like mine was.

Secondly, There are dozens of polls out there that clearly show that the American people are against any intervention in Syria. Just two I grabbed off the net quickly. http://main.aol.com/2013/09/06/where-aol-users-stand-on-_n_3880340.html

Update, 8:25 p.m.: As of 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, AOL.com's unofficial opinion poll had exceeded 167,000 respondents, with an overwhelming majority opposed to a military strike in Syria. Only 13 percent said a strike was necessary, while 76 percent of respondents said the US should not become entangled in the complicated Middle East nation. The poll closed at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ia-a-closer-division-if-allies-are-involved/\

Nearly six in 10 Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll oppose unilateral U.S. missile strikes against Syria, and even more oppose arming the Syrian rebels – a complication for Barack Obama and proponents of military action in Congress alike.

http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1144a26Syria.pdf

It really gives me pause when our elected officials turn a deaf ear to the will of their constituency. From what I have been reading and seeing on the news @goon175 it seems the Senate is backing the plan to bomb Syria.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/politics/us-syria/index.html

By a 10-7 vote, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the resolution that authorizes a limited military response, giving Obama an initial victory in his push to win congressional approval.

Granted with public opinion being so negative to the idea of starting a conflict in Syria which may well lead to escalating involvement by Russia and China, that attitude may change in the coming days. Along with the realization that the midterm elections are next year. However, I think many of our elected officials simply dont give a damn what their constituents think, evidenced by this video of a town hall meeting yesterday in Arizona.

John Kerry himself has proclaimed that the president does not require congressional approval to strike Syria. I think all of of this talk is theater on the part of our government and regardless of the will of the people the strike will occur. Any voting by the House or Senate is simply theater at this point. This president will do whatever he wants to do and I fail to see how any of us can respect that sort of behavior.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/john-kerry-congress-syria_n_3881200.html

But even though Obama is now seeking Congress’ support, Kerry insisted that the president is not bound by law to stand down should his plan be rejected.

Hadn’t the president in essence ceded that leeway by coming to Congress? I asked the secretary of state.

The answer, he said, was no.

 

[Totentanz]

First of all, I respect the office of the President of the United States. That being said, I have no respect for the current President. That is my right as a US Citizen, Freedom of Speech and thought is it not? Any President that refuses to listen to the will of his or her people should cause one pause, indeed. To be arbitrarily compelled to refer to Obama as "PRESIDENT OBAMA" by site rule is a little silly in my opinion and I see may examples all over the site where no one else's comments are called on the carpet like mine was.

Chop, I agree with a lot of what you post, and with the vast majority of the posts you've had in this thread. That said... I think you're off-base on this one.

Barack Obama is afforded the title of President of the United States by virtue of the election of 2012. There is little dispute that he won the election handily, and none that reaches past the conspiracy theorists. Your refusal to refer to him by his elected title appears childish and detracts from the rest of what you've posted here.

 

[Chopstick]

Chop, I agree with a lot of what you post, and with the vast majority of the posts you've had in this thread. That said... I think you're off-base on this one.

Barack Obama is afforded the title of President of the United States by virtue of the election of 2012. There is little dispute that he won the election handily, and none that reaches past the conspiracy theorists. Your refusal to refer to him by his elected title appears childish and detracts from the rest of what you've posted here.

Fair enough, but that is my opinion and I would be untruthful if I stated otherwise.

 

[Kaboom]

I didn't know we had beef.

Yep, as i see it, it's more of a biased opinion against you from our part (and i blame mostly the media) and in the end of the day i know that every country has to look for her own benefit.

Thanks, I appreciate the insight.

On the 1st point, why is the USA blamed for the UN doing/not doing something?
On the second point, I just had a look at the United States Geological Society online maps and the two islands are named Imia Limnia Dio and Imia Limnia Ena.

Another question, what do Greeks think of the British?

My pleasure. Well i agree with you but i guess evil Americans are behind everything :-/ As for the second point i looked it up also and read (in wiki) US later changed it back to its orginal name so go figure. And let's not forget the opinion i think is popular even beyond Greece how USA staged 9/11 in order just to get the oil and other benefits from these third world nations.

As for the British not much really is said, but they played a major role in Cyprus given the fact that before WWI the island was a protectorate of their empire and they were against the unification of them with Greece (of course there are much more details to it if you want to go in depth). So they are almost equally disliked just not mentioned that much. Of course many think how Europe in general has become US's bitches. If you need something more specific i'll gladly (search if needed and) answer.

Of course many of these beliefs and opinions are not adopted by everyone, but it's a good representation of your average Greek folk.

EDIT: Man how could i forget one of the most important issues. Many people were against the strikes in Yuogoslavia. We have strong ties with Serbs. And the recognition of Republic of Macedonia angered many, as Macedonia is considered to be Greek.

 

[pardus]

Yep, as i see it, it's more of a biased opinion against you from our part (and i blame mostly the media) and in the end of the day i know that every country has to look for her own benefit.



My pleasure. Well i agree with you but i guess evil Americans are behind everything :-/ As for the second point i looked it up also and read (in wiki) US later changed it back to its orginal name so go figure. And let's not forget the opinion i think is popular even beyond Greece how USA staged 9/11 in order just to get the oil and other benefits from these third world nations.

As for the British not much really is said, but they played a major role in Cyprus given the fact that before WWI the island was a protectorate of their empire and they were against the unification of them with Greece (of course there are much more details to it if you want to go in depth). So they are almost equally disliked just not mentioned that much. Of course many think how Europe in general has become US's bitches. If you need something more specific i'll gladly (search if needed and) answer.

Of course many of these beliefs and opinions are not adopted by everyone, but it's a good representation of your average Greek folk.

Interesting.
I'm not going to talk about 9/11 as I have no respect for people who think it was a conspiracy.
You don't need to go to any trouble, I was just curious.
So Greeks in general don't care about Britain etc... Fighting for them during WWII? I know my homeland (New Zealand) lost a few people there in 1941, mainly on Crete.

 

[AWP]

Since thread drift is already in effect...

@Kaboom in the larger sense of Greek-Western (US/ UK) relations, how much influence do you attribute to our involvement in the Civil War, particularly since the Communists lost? Currently a good portion of your population is left of center, so do you think modern grievances are cited but the root goes back to the late 40's? People can nurture a grudge forever and I'd think our involvement in in your Civil War plays more of a role than people realize.

 

[amlove21]

The guys who would go pick up the pilot are Air Force and no one has vowed "No slippers on the ground"....

Touche, smartass. Touche.

 

[Kaboom]

Interesting.
I'm not going to talk about 9/11 as I have no respect for people who think it was a conspiracy.
You don't need to go to any trouble, I was just curious.
So Greeks in general don't care about Britain etc... Fighting for them during WWII? I know my homeland (New Zealand) lost a few people there in 1941, mainly on Crete.

I forgot to mention the attack in Yugoslavia and added it in my previous posts.

No unfortunately. Many are not even aware of this. Everyone is too busy being proud (but i think rightfully so) of how we got to make the Italians retreat and making the Germans alter their plans in order to occupy us. From what i've read it was one of the major morale boosting victories of the allied forces.

Speaking about me, i know about the fierce resistance New Zealand, the British and Australians showed along with our own troops to hold Germans off Crete and am forever grateful and have the utmost respect for them.

 

[Kaboom]

Since thread drift is already in effect...

@Kaboom in the larger sense of Greek-Western (US/ UK) relations, how much influence do you attribute to our involvement in the Civil War, particularly since the Communists lost? Currently a good portion of your population is left of center, so do you think modern grievances are cited but the root goes back to the late 40's? People can nurture a grudge forever and I'd think our involvement in in your Civil War plays more of a role than people realize.

Well nowdays the amount of people voting for the communist party is relatively small (and there is actually a huge boost of the far right party) but you are absolutely right. People remember how Yugoslavia and other Balkan countries helped the Democratic Army of Greece and of course the middle classes in their majority until today will support everyday the people of our country over the goverment. I mentioned it before but people also hate you because of the US backing of the military junta later on.

But if there is one thing i can comment on this matter, is thank god the Western forces kept the Red Bear away from us. I know there were tough times here in my country, but i have friends who lived in those Soviet Union Nations and you can only imagine what they had to go through and eventually how this ended up for these poor countries. Again i'm sorry for all the mess i made in this thread and also for the late replies but 1st i have to fully understand what you say and then to find the right worlds to answer

 

[AWP]

Again i'm sorry for all the mess i made in this thread and also for the late replies but 1st i have to fully understand what you say and then to find the right worlds to answer

You're good. It is interesting to hear the views of a non-American/ non-Commonwealth citizen (the bulk of this board's membership).

When we look at that corner of the globe, we think of the Balkans and the troubles in the 90's. We forget (well, most Americans don't know) the upheavals that took place post-WWII and in the early days of the Cold War. We don't think about the influence Turkey has on a large swath of the globe and when the subject of Greece comes up people think of the country's financial issues and not the Greek role in a key portion of the globe.

 

[Chopstick]

I found this piece written by House Representative Alan Grayson(House Committee member on Foreign Affairs) to offer some insight as to what our elected officials are being given in the way of information from the administration. It gives me some hope that perhaps some of our elected officials are going to use their own intellect during these hearings leading up to a vote and not snooze through them or play video poker during critical testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/opinion/on-syria-vote-trust-but-verify.html?_r=1&

John Kerry, has said repeatedly that this administration isn’t trying to manipulate the intelligence reports the way that the Bush administration did to rationalize its invasion of Iraq.
But by refusing to disclose the underlying data even to members of Congress, the administration is making it impossible for anyone to judge, independently, whether that statement is correct. Perhaps the edict of an earlier administration applies: “Trust, but verify.”

The danger of the administration’s approach was illustrated by a widely read report last week in The Daily Caller, which claimed that the Obama administration had selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes in Syria, with one report “doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.”

The allegedly doctored report attributes the attack to the Syrian general staff. But according to The Daily Caller, “it was clear that ‘the Syrian general staff were out of their minds with panic that an unauthorized strike had been launched by the 155th Brigade in express defiance of their instructions.’ ”

I don’t know who is right, the administration or The Daily Caller. But for me to make the correct decision on whether to allow an attack, I need to know. And so does the American public.

We have reached the point where the classified information system prevents even trusted members of Congress, who have security clearances, from learning essential facts, and then inhibits them from discussing and debating what they do know. And this extends to matters of war and peace, money and blood. The “security state” is drowning in its own phlegm.

My position is simple: if the administration wants me to vote for war, on this occasion or on any other, then I need to know all the facts. And I’m not the only one who feels that way.

 

[0699]

I found this piece written by House Representative Alan Grayson(House Committee member on Foreign Affairs) to offer some insight as to what our elected officials are being given in the way of information from the administration. It gives me some hope that perhaps some of our elected officials are going to use their own intellect during these hearings leading up to a vote and not snooze through them or play video poker during critical testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/opinion/on-syria-vote-trust-but-verify.html?_r=1&

Like the information provided by the executive branch about Benghazi?

 

[Chopstick]

Like the information provided by the executive branch about Benghazi?

Ha! Good point. Perhaps I should have said "what information is being altered, spun and skewed by the current administration prior to being given to our elected officials".
Dennis Kuchinich raises some valid questions that need to be answered.
This is just the first on his list. You can click the link for all of the rest.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-j-kucinich/syria-war-questions_b_3870763.html

Claim #1. The administration claims a chemical weapon was used.

The UN inspectors are still completing their independent evaluation.

Who provided the physiological samples of sarin gas on which your evaluation is based? Were any other non-weaponized chemical agents discovered or sampled?

Who from the United States was responsible for the chain of custody?

Where was the laboratory analysis conducted?

Were U.S. officials present during the analysis of the samples? Does your sample show military grade or lower grade sarin gas?

Can you verify that your sample matches the exact composition of the alleged Syrian government composition?

 

[Marauder06]

 

[Chopstick]

This should be interesting.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/08/charlie-rose-interviews-bashar-assad/2782001/

Syrian President Bashar Assad says he didn't have anything to do with a chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of Damascus last month,which has led President Obama to weigh a military strike against his regime, says CBS News' Charlie Rose.

Rose, who previewed his interview on the CBS Sunday interview show Face the Nation, said he interviewed Assad on Sunday morning in Damascus. Excerpts of the interview will air for the first time Monday on CBS This Morning. The interview will air in its entirety Monday night on The Charlie Rose Show on PBS.