U.S.: Syria used chemical weapons, crossing "red line"

[tinydancer]

8/26 BEIRUT—United Nations weapons inspectors arrived at one of the sites of last week's presumed chemical weapons attacks outside Damascus, spurning U.S. calls for the team to stop their mission as American officials said they are inching closer to a decision for a military strike.

Whoa --- we're trying hard to get the UN team to pull out of there soonest!

Obama must be in a big hurry to launch those cruise missiles. He doesn't want the UN inspectors affected: is that because he wants to hit that very area?? No, probably he just wants the UN entirely out of the country when we hit it.

Tonight, I bet.

What the hell is going on. Ok I had a party weekend it was my birthday weekend and just rocked and turned off all news.

What the fuck is Obama doing?

He wants Assad doesn't he? That's just it. Obama won't be happy until he takes out Assad.

Freaking crazy mother fucker. He's going to have his Arab Spring now isn't he?

 

[Lipush]

Do you believe Obama will attack Syria, really?

 

[FA_Q2]

Do you believe Obama will attack Syria, really?

Do you really see that as a stretch? We are winding down the 2 wars that we are currently in; that war machine needs a needs target and the president/government needs a new target for the 2 minute hate.

 

[Lipush]

Do you believe Obama will attack Syria, really?

Do you really see that as a stretch?

I don't know what that means

 

[Lipush]

Do you believe Obama will attack Syria, really?

Do you really see that as a stretch? We are winding down the 2 wars that we are currently in; that war machine needs a needs target and the president/government needs a new target for the 2 minute hate.

My gas mask is my new baby

 

[High_Gravity]

Do you believe Obama will attack Syria, really?

No I don't think so.

 

[Lipush]

Do you believe Obama will attack Syria, really?

No I don't think so.

mhmmm

 

[High_Gravity]

Do you believe Obama will attack Syria, really?

Do you really see that as a stretch? We are winding down the 2 wars that we are currently in; that war machine needs a needs target and the president/government needs a new target for the 2 minute hate.

My gas mask is my new baby

Smart girl.

 

[Lipush]

Hehehehe

 

[Ropey]

What the hell is going on. Ok I had a party weekend it was my birthday weekend and just rocked and turned off all news.

What the fuck is Obama doing?

He wants Assad doesn't he? That's just it. Obama won't be happy until he takes out Assad.

Freaking crazy mother fucker. He's going to have his Arab Spring now isn't he?

It was coming and one can not hold back the Shia/Sunni divide forever. I posted this today when I was in the politics section but I believe it stands well here also.

The US objective is to keep control while stepping back as the blood flow continues. President Obama's objective is to allow the Muslim brotherhood a neck-hold in Syria as Bush allowed Iran (Shia) a strangle-hold with Iraq. Hence, the arming and stepping back.

Now, when the loss seems otherwise inevitable and Iran's Shia side winning through Hezbollah intervention, there's US movement. The US has had the information of chemical attacks since President Obama went to Israel and picked them up while mouthing off niceties and giving weapons systems enhancements. While arming Egypt, Libya and Syria.

Iran's (Shia) objective is to strengthen its own proxied hand in the Shia 'Green Crescent" while continuing to advance both its nuclear and conventional military strength.

The Muslim Brotherhood sees the loss of Saddam and his Sunni Alliances in Iraq as a regional Arab loss to the Shia. So, there's a drive to regain other buffer states (Yemen, Bahrain, Lebanon etc.)

If Assad is killed and the regime capitulates, then this would be over and the Iranian proxy structure seriously harmed as well as Iran's attempts to re-invigorate the green crescent.

No one who has those concerns wants Assad dead before they get a chance to strengthen their concerns. (imo)

And Assad is not seen as 'illegitimate' in the Muslim world. He's not killing his own and that's why there's no outcry other than condemnation and calls for Sunni warriors to enter the fray.

Assad is Shia and he's killing Sunni. That's allowed. So now the Sunni are coming from all over the ME to fight holy Jihad against the Shia.

The big boys are arming them all.

 

[Circe]

It does seem to be disintegrating into a Sunni/Shiite conflict, in any states that have both.

 

[dilloduck]

It does seem to be disintegrating into a Sunni/Shiite conflict, in any states that have both.

That conflict has been going on for years. It's being taken advantage of now.

 

[Jos]

WOLF BLITZER, HOST: Another crucial deadline for ̶S̶a̶d̶d̶a̶m̶ ̶H̶u̶s̶s̶e̶i̶n̶ assad is imminent. The clock is ticking, fast approaching. Will he follow the U.N.'s order destroy his arsenal of battlefield missiles by Saturday?
And while the U.N. pressures Iraq, President ̶B̶u̶s̶h̶ Obama pressures the U.N. We'll go live to the White House.

And I'll talk missiles, war and how the U.S. would rebuild ̶I̶r̶a̶q̶ Syria after a war, with retired General Wesley Clark.

WOLF BLITZER REPORTS starts right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(voice-over) Showdown: I̶r̶a̶q̶,Syria. What would it take to avoid a war?

̶G̶E̶O̶R̶G̶E̶ ̶W̶.̶ ̶B̶U̶S̶H̶ BARACK H. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's only one thing: full disarmament.

BLITZER: Will I̶r̶a̶q̶ Syria destroy its missiles?

B̶U̶S̶H̶, OBAMA: I suspect that he will try to fool the world one more time.

CNN.com - Transcripts

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

 

[Richard-H]

If Syria (or whoever used the chemical weapons in Syria), goes unpunished, it means that the use of chemical weapons will most likely be used in conflicts all over the world. This is the real issue.

Chemical Weapons Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does a failure to retaliate mean that the Chemical Weapons Convention is dead?

 

[NightFox]

If Syria (or whoever used the chemical weapons in Syria), goes unpunished, it means that the use of chemical weapons will most likely be used in conflicts all over the world. This is the real issue.

Chemical Weapons Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does a failure to retaliate mean that the Chemical Weapons Convention is dead?

It was never "alive" the major powers have built and maintained enormous stockpiles of chemical weapons since the end of WW I, the United States and the Soviet Union were both ready, willing and able to use them in the event of a direct confrontation, so essentially the U.S. has reserved the right to use them all along we just don't want anybody else using them, hypocrisy at it's finest.

The use of chemical weapons in Syria doesn't justify the U.S. murdering people that are not directly threatening us and only makes sense if you buy into the Bush Preemption Doctrine nonsense (which apparently the current President does).

 

[DiamondDave]

Funny how we have not bombed numerous other countries that have used and have stockpiled chemical weapons

 

[NightFox]

Funny how we have not bombed numerous other countries that have used and have stockpiled chemical weapons

Yep, didn't lift a finger when Saddam Hussein attacked the Kurds in 1988 with chemical weapons, in fact the State Department tried to lay part of the blame on Iran (Saddam was a pal at the time after all).

 

[Freewill]

The Kurds love GWB because he removed the despot, and his sons, from power.

The Iraq War Was a Good Idea, If You Ask the Kurds

Took a man to do what Clinton didn't.

Not that I would have voted for war in Iraq as did Kerry and Hillary, I think I would have voted no.

 

[Katzndogz]

The terrorists who used chemical weapons should be punished. Instead obama will reward them with military support.

 

[Richard-H]

If Syria (or whoever used the chemical weapons in Syria), goes unpunished, it means that the use of chemical weapons will most likely be used in conflicts all over the world. This is the real issue.

Chemical Weapons Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does a failure to retaliate mean that the Chemical Weapons Convention is dead?

It was never "alive" the major powers have built and maintained enormous stockpiles of chemical weapons since the end of WW I....

What proof do you have of these assertions?

It only takes a bit of logic to tell that you're taking a wild guess. You believe that the super powers have stock piles of chemical weapons, but you certainly do not know that as a fact.

It is highly doubtful that the super powers have stock piles of chemical weapons. They have all signed the Chemical weapons convention and are capable of monitoring each other for compliance.

In fact, the real reason that major military powers are more than willing to eliminate the possible use of chemical weapons is that chemical and biological weapons are, for a professional military point of view, very lousy weapons. Military commanders do not want them.

Think of this scenario:

You're a military commander assigned to attack and take over an enemy bunker complex...if you use conventional explosives against these bunkers, you can see that either the bunkers were destroyed or not just by looking thru your binoculars. If it was destroyed, you can be relatively certain that all of the enemy soldiers within have been killed. You can then send your soldiers to attack the bunkers with relative certainty that there will be a successful attack with few casualties.

However,

If you use chemical or biological weapons against the bunkers, what can you ell about the attack?

NOTHING!

The enemy soldiers may have gas masks or may have been immunized against such an attack. Maybe the wind was blowing the wrong way and the toxins didn't even get to the enemy. Maybe the toxins mean that the enemy will get a bad cold sometime in the next few weeks?

You simply do not know the outcome of the attack and when you send you men to storm the bunker you have no way of knowing what the enemy troops strength is...the attack could be a total disaster.

During WWI officers hated using chemical weapons because of their unreliability - often they would blow back on their own troops.

This is the real reason why major military powers do not want to use chemical and biological weapons.