We'll be in Syria any day now...

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
Silent Right
Member
Joined in 2008

PostWe'll be in Syria any day now...
by Silent Right » Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:41 pm

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013 ... apons.html

U.S. intelligence has concluded “with some degree of varying confidence” that the Syrian government has twice used chemical weapons in its fierce civil war, the White House and other top administration officials said Thursday.

However, officials also said more definitive proof was needed and the U.S. was not ready to escalate its involvement in the troubled country. That response appeared to be an effort to bide time, given U.S. President Barack Obama’s repeated public assertions that Syria’s use of chemical weapons, or the transfer of its stockpiles to a terrorist group, would cross a “red line.”

The White House disclosed the new intelligence Thursday in letters to two senators, and Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel, travelling in Abu Dhabi, also discussed it with reporters.
Reaction in Ottawa

The U.S. assertion that Assad's regime has used chemical weapons triggered a response on Parliament Hill on Thursday afternoon.

"We are very concerned with these reports and remain in close contact with our allies," said a statement from Joseph Lavoie, a spokesman for Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird.

"We have been consistent and very clear — the international community will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons by [President Bashar] Assad on the Syrian people.

"Ultimately, Assad and his supporters will be held accountable."

“Our intelligence community does assess, with varying degrees of confidence, that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically, the chemical agent sarin,” the White House said in its letter, which was signed by Obama’s legislative director, Miguel Rodriguez.

Shortly after the letters was made public, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Capitol Hill that there were two instances of chemical weapons use.

Hagel said the use of chemical weapons “violates every convention of warfare.”

It was not immediately clear what quantity of weapons might have been used, or when or what casualties might have resulted.

Ahmad Ramadan, a member of the Syrian National Coalition opposition group’s executive body, called the U.S. assertion an “important step” that should be followed by actual measures taken by the UN Security Council and Friends of Syria group.

Ramadan told The Associated Press by phone from Istanbul that the U.S. has a “moral duty” to act to prevent President Bashar al-Assad from using more chemical weapons.
'Game-changer'

Obama has said the use of chemical weapons would be a “game-changer” in the U.S. position on intervening in the Syrian civil war, and the letter to Congress reiterated that the use or transfer of such weapons in Syria was a “red line for the United States.” However, the letter also suggested a broad U.S. response was not imminent.
A boy, affected in what the government said was a chemical weapons attack, is treated at a hospital in the Syrian city of Aleppo on March 19, 2013. A boy, affected in what the government said was a chemical weapons attack, is treated at a hospital in the Syrian city of Aleppo on March 19, 2013. (George Ourfalian/Reuters)

Rodriguez wrote that “because the president takes this issue so seriously, we have an obligation to fully investigate any and all evidence of chemical weapons use within Syria.”

The letter went to Republican Senator John McCain and Democratic Senator Carl Levin.

The assessment, Rodriguez said, was based in part on “physiological samples.”

The letter also said the U.S. believes the use of chemical weapons “originated with the Assad regime.” That is consistent with the Obama administration’s assertion that the Syrian opposition does not have access to the country’s stockpiles.

Learn more about key facts, important players in Syria's civil war

A senior defence official cautioned that the White House letter was not an “automatic trigger” for policy decisions on the use of military force. The official alluded to past instances of policy decisions that were based on what turned out to be flawed intelligence, such as the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq after concluding that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.

The official commented only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

Syrian rebels like this man clash with government forces

1 of 22

McCain quoted from the letter in making his own comments to reporters on Capitol Hill.

“We just received a letter from the president in response to our question about whether Assad had used chemical weapons,” McCain said following a closed briefing with Kerry on Syria and North Korea.

U.S. commanders have laid out a range of possible options for military involvement in Syria. They have also made it clear that any U.S. action would likely be either with NATO backing or with a coalition of nations.

The military options could include establishing a no-fly zone or a secured area within Syria, launching airstrikes by drones and fighter jets, and sending in ground forces to secure chemical weapons supplies.

While Obama has called that a “red line” for taking some kind of further action to assist the rebels, administration officials say the intelligence is not solid enough to warrant such a move.


Sounds very convenient to me, they don't know where, when, how much was used, or who it was used on but they know chemical weapons were used, and if they were used they would be "morally" obligated to go into the conflict, obviously to get to the chemical weapons before they fall into the hands of the rebels who are made up of terrorists. :dread:

Pelloki on ghosts wrote:Just start masturbating furiously. That'll make them go away.

Image
User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009

PostRe: We'll be in Syria any day now...
by Preezy » Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:55 pm

Image

User avatar
Octoroc
Emeritus
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Blighty

PostRe: We'll be in Syria any day now...
by Octoroc » Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:10 pm

“with some degree of varying confidence”

Not like the good old days when we 100% sure that Hussein was about to deploy WMDs.

User avatar
Alvin Flummux
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Wilmington, OH, USA
Contact:

PostRe: We'll be in Syria any day now...
by Alvin Flummux » Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:37 pm

Republicans like John McCain have been saying for months that America should step in and help the rebels. Maybe it should, I mean it doesn't look at all like Assad or the rebels are about to be defeated and the horrific death toll just keeps mounting (to say nothing of the cultural devastation the country is suffering), but they seem a bit too eager to ramp up US involvement there. I dunno... either they just want to make money from launching yet another war, or they want Obama to take sides so they can hang the Democrats in the 2014 mid-terms and 2016 elections by the same noose the Republicans were hung by for years.

Last edited by Alvin Flummux on Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Wiggy G32
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: cpc3232

PostRe: We'll be in Syria any day now...
by Wiggy G32 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:40 pm

I cant see the usa or us actually putting boots on the ground but i could see a no fly zone beng established which would hinder the pro government forces a fair bit

Ginga
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: We'll be in Syria any day now...
by Ginga » Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:35 pm

Why should America get involved?

User avatar
Alvin Flummux
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Wilmington, OH, USA
Contact:

PostRe: We'll be in Syria any day now...
by Alvin Flummux » Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:37 pm

Ginga wrote:Why should America get involved?


To make it easier for the rebels to win? To stop Assad from launching air raids?

Ginga
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: We'll be in Syria any day now...
by Ginga » Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:46 pm

Alvin Flummux wrote:
Ginga wrote:Why should America get involved?


To make it easier for the rebels to win? To stop Assad from launching air raids?


So America will stop Assad's air raids so they can launch their own counter air raids? These sort of interventions always go well. America playing global police officer (as long as there's money to be made and they think they can outbomb you, otherwise do as you please).

User avatar
kommissarboris
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: belfast

PostRe: We'll be in Syria any day now...
by kommissarboris » Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:59 pm

Alvin Flummux wrote:
Ginga wrote:Why should America get involved?


To make it easier for the rebels to win? To stop Assad from launching air raids?


Got to be very careful who these rebs actually are though surely.

Howmany times have rebs been sided with only to have to be fought against years later...

Its shitty, but let them fight it out, I don't think sides should be picked, give aid, put pressure on to stop the fighting all together, but don't go in all shooting for one side or the other.

The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them in parliament.

Image
User avatar
Alvin Flummux
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Wilmington, OH, USA
Contact:

PostRe: We'll be in Syria any day now...
by Alvin Flummux » Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:59 pm

America would ideally impose a No Fly Zone, but not launch its own air raids. It would help the rebels, assuming it knows it isn't assisting terrorists, but not become militarily entwined with them.

Obama doesn't want to go to war. He's well liked and respected by his Joint Chiefs of Staff, he knows how to command, he really does know his stuff, but if he can avoid getting American troops or other military assets becoming involved in a foreign war, he will. Of course, there is a point at which the pressure to act becomes so great that he has to do something, as in Libya, and I think that point in Syria is fast approaching. I expect a No Fly Zone to be imposed before year's end, but nothing more.

Last edited by Alvin Flummux on Fri Apr 26, 2013 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
hoodboilu4
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: We'll be in Syria any day now...
by hoodboilu4 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:59 pm

Chemical Warfare is an international crime and it won't be just the USA that get involved, it'll be Libya all over again.

Image
Ginga
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: We'll be in Syria any day now...
by Ginga » Fri Apr 26, 2013 5:20 pm

Alvin Flummux wrote:America would ideally impose a No Fly Zone, but not launch its own air raids. It would help the rebels, assuming it knows it isn't assisting terrorists, but not become militarily entwined with them.


They don't. They want smoother access to oil in that area, this is convenient.

Alvin Flummux wrote:Obama doesn't want to go to war. He's well liked and respected by his Joint Chiefs of Staff, he knows how to command, he really does know his stuff, but if he can avoid getting American troops or other military assets becoming involved in a foreign war, he will. Of course, there is a point at which the pressure to act becomes so great that he has to do something, as in Libya, and I think that point in Syria is fast approaching. I expect a No Fly Zone to be imposed before year's end, but nothing more.


Obama has no power. A failed gun and financial bill proves this to even the least interested of observers. If America wants a war to line the pockets of the people that put Obama in power, they'll get that war.

User avatar
Alvin Flummux
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Wilmington, OH, USA
Contact:

PostRe: We'll be in Syria any day now...
by Alvin Flummux » Fri Apr 26, 2013 5:26 pm

Ginga wrote:Obama has no power. A failed gun and financial bill proves this to even the least interested of observers. If America wants a war to line the pockets of the people that put Obama in power, they'll get that war.


Obama has "no power" because Congress is dominated by Republicans dead set on rejecting every single thing he supports (even if they are good things), and the gun control thing failed because it's widely perceived to be political suicide to get behind it.

Ginga
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: We'll be in Syria any day now...
by Ginga » Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:22 pm

Alvin Flummux wrote:Obama has "no power" because Congress is dominated by Republicans dead set on rejecting every single thing he supports (even if they are good things), and the gun control thing failed because it's widely perceived to be political suicide to get behind it.


Semantics - he has no power, a "lame-duck president" as they say. The US has targeted Syria because of a strategic alliance with Iran and as a underlying strategy of isolating and encircling the Iranians as a prelude to toppling their government. The US have systematically occupied and militarized nearly all the countries that border Iran. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Kuwait (where they deployed 15,000 troops in December) and Turkey (US airbases) on Iran’s western border. Saudi Arabia (also host US military bases) and Qatar to the south.

It gon' rain, then it gon' war.

Last edited by Ginga on Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Meep In Heavenly Peace
Member
Joined in 2010
Location: Belfast

PostRe: We'll be in Syria any day now...
by Meep In Heavenly Peace » Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:24 pm

Don't worry, there's no oil in Syria, well not much anyway.

Ginga
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: We'll be in Syria any day now...
by Ginga » Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:26 pm

Meep wrote:Don't worry, there's no oil in Syria, well not much anyway.


There's plenty in the Eastern Mediterranean. Untapped in places, too.

User avatar
Silent Right
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: We'll be in Syria any day now...
by Silent Right » Sat Apr 27, 2013 12:10 am

kommissarboris wrote:
Alvin Flummux wrote:
Ginga wrote:Why should America get involved?


To make it easier for the rebels to win? To stop Assad from launching air raids?


Got to be very careful who these rebs actually are though surely.

Howmany times have rebs been sided with only to have to be fought against years later...

Its shitty, but let them fight it out, I don't think sides should be picked, give aid, put pressure on to stop the fighting all together, but don't go in all shooting for one side or the other.



The reason they are going to go in is to get the chemical/ biological weapons so they don't fall into the rebel hands as they could then be used to attack other targets like Israel, or the US.

Pelloki on ghosts wrote:Just start masturbating furiously. That'll make them go away.

Image
User avatar
1cmanny1
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
Location: New Zealand

PostRe: We'll be in Syria any day now...
by 1cmanny1 » Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:41 am

You should just go in, and claim it for the Empire. Beat those stupid Yanks to it.

Image
User avatar
Shadow
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: We'll be in Syria any day now...
by Shadow » Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:03 pm

Have we got bored of North Korea now? Haven't heard anything about that for a couple of weeks..


RE: Syria

I think the UN should have something in place to deal with civil wars that doesn't involve a bigger war. Like if you shoot on your own people an enormous UN force moves in and pacifies the situation and a general election is forced. I dunno, there's just something about "giving weapons to the rebels" which doesn't sound like the right thing to do.

User avatar
Somebody Else's Presents
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
Location: Wherever you want me to be, baby

PostRe: We'll be in Syria any day now...
by Somebody Else's Presents » Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:43 am

Shadow wrote: I dunno, there's just something about "giving weapons to the rebels" which doesn't sound like the right thing to do.


You mean all those times when it's backfired horribly? Like with Saddam Hussein, or the Afghan Mujahideen?

Image

Return to “Stuff”