Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It is a pretty mind altering site. It makes you think what would NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, or Washington DC look like after one of these attacks? Hopefully we will never know.
Secretary of State John Kerry gave an interview on Monday talking about the large scale attacks occuring in Syria. It has gotten me wondering will there be another war on our hands?
Heres what a chemical weapons attack is like | Rare.us
....Israel has the finest spies in the world and they're mapping Assad's chemical munition depots as I write this. The strikes will be surgical and devastating...
Meanwhile, the draft text of the resolution authorizing President Barack Obama to use force in Syria that is being taken up by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today prohibits the president from putting ground troops in Syria "for the purpose of combat operations"--but appears to leave open the possiblity that the president could put troops in Syria to secure chemical weapons. "The authority granted in section 2 does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations," says the text of the draft resolution. However, Section 2 of the resolution gives the president the authority to use the Armed Forces in Syria "as he determines necessary and appropriate" for a limited set of purposes, including "to protect our allies and partners against the use of" weapons of mass destruction.
The CRS report saying that the Pentagon had estimated it would take "over 75,000 troops" to secure Syria's chemical weapons was issued just one day before an August 21 chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs. According to an assessment released by the U.S. government, that attack killed 1,429 people. Ten days after the attack--and eleven days after the CRS released its report--President Obama announced his intention to use military force to penalize the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Asad for perpetrating the attack. “U.S. officials have expressed confidence that chemical weapons stocks in Syria are secured by the Asad regime, which dispatched elite Special Forces for that purpose,” said the CRS report--“Syria’s Chemical Weapons: Issues for Congress.”
But the report also said the U.S. government has been making contingency plans to make sure the Asad regime’s chemical weapons did not fall into the hands of terrorists “in the event of the regime’s loss of control.” In this context, the CRS said the Pentagon had estimated it would take “over 75,000 troops” to neutralize the weapons “Due to the urgency of preventing access to these weapons by unauthorized groups, including terrorists, the United States government has been preparing for scenarios to secure the weapons in the event of the Asad regime’s loss of control,” said the CRS report. “However, this presents unique challenges,” said the CRS report. “In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 7, 2012, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said, ‘It’s 100 times worse than what we dealt with in Libya. And for that reason, that’s why it’s raised even greater concerns about our ability to address how we can secure those sites.’ The Pentagon has estimated that it would take over 75,000 troops to neutralize the chemical weapons.”
To back up the assertion that it would take “over 75,000 troops” to neutralize Syria’s chemical weapons, the CRS report footnoted a Feb. 22, 2012 report by CNN. “The U.S. military has calculated it could take more than 75,000 ground troops to secure Syria's chemical warfare facilities if they were at risk of being looted or left unguarded, CNN has learned,” said CNN’s Barbara Starr in that report. “The conclusion comes from a military analysis of options for Syria that the Department of Defense is preparing for president should he request it, according to a senior U.S. official. … The analysis was provided by the United States' Central Command, which has been considering how the U.S. military would handle potential scenarios should U.S. troops be called in, according to a senior U.S. official with direct knowledge of the situation.”
MORE
But on Wednesday in Sweden -- echoing comments made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday -- Obama told reporters, "First of all, I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. "Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty," and when it passed the Syria Accountability Act, Obama added. "And so when I said in a press conference (last year), that my calculus about what's happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, um -- that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. There's a reason for it."
Flash back to Aug. 20. 2012, when Obama was asked at a news conference if he envisioned using the U.S. military to secure Syria's chemical weapons. He called Syria a "very tough issue," and urged Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down. He also talked about providing humanitarian assistance the the Syrian opposition, and said he was mulling aid to the rebels. "I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation," Obama said at that 2012 news conference. "But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people. "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."
In response to a follow-up question, Obama admitted that he couldn't say he was "absolutely confident" that Syria's chemical weapons were secure. "What I’m saying is, we’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans. We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculations significantly." (Nine days earlier, on Aug. 11, 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the first to use the "red line" phrase. She was in Turkey to discuss growing concerns about the situation in Syria -- and at that time, she told reporters, "Everyone has made it clear to the Syrian regime" that the use of chemical weapons "is a red line for the world.")
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday provided cover for President Obama, telling reporters after a meeting at the White House that Syrian President Bashar Assad had "crossed a line" when he used chemical weapons. "President Obama did not draw the red line," Pelosi said. "Humanity drew it decades ago, 170-some countries supporting the convention on not using chemicals -- chemical warfare. So it is really something that, from a humanitarian standpoint, cannot be ignored, or else we cannot say never again. Secondly, from a national security standpoint, we have to send a very clear message to those who have weapons of mass destruction of any variety that they should forget about using them.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/obama-i-didnt-set-red-line-syria
