Jump to content

Syria chemical weapons allegations


gs

Recommended Posts

Dear President Obama, Please do NOT get involved in the Syrian mess. They are not an imminent threat to the US, and as sad as it is for the victims, we simply cannot afford another military mis-step. Or another long, drawn out occupation. Or another "nation-buliding" exercise. It is not worth it. Sincerely, Cricaddict
+1 The US simply can't afford it. If the UN wants to intervene the US should say ok we will provide minimal logistics support. Let the rest of the middle east like Israel and Saudi send their troops and missiles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's already decided, according to NPR news, US lead Air Strikes on Syrian military bases starting Thursday... and it can last for 3-4 days.. or may require second round after that.. Obama is much sane than Bush admin in this regard..
I hope the Dems that were calling for bush's impeachment after iraq also call for obama's impeachment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not always material gains. What did they gain from intervening in Bosnia ?
They must have gained something, stability in europe perhaps? otherwise it doesn't make sense to go to the extent of mobilizing troops and bombing a country so close to russia. All that trouble to save foreigners on a different continent?
2. For humanity.. Use of chemical weapons is no-go zone. US would have stayed out otherwise.
This 2nd reason is pure fantasy. Such things don't happen. Chemical weapons is just an excuse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter if its not the same. President is taking unilateral action and waging war without consent from congress. As per US constitution' date=' that's illegal[/quote'] If that was the case then Bush would have been impeached.. i am sure there is a loophole.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter if its not the same. President is taking unilateral action and waging war without consent from congress. As per US constitution' date=' that's illegal[/quote'] Not really. Congress has power to declare war, President has the power to protect American interests/security. So unless the US wants to formally declare war against another country, the President can use the military to protect US interests without congressional approval. The reason there was a call for Bush's impeachment was not because he didn't get congress' approval, rather because his admin supposedly lied about the intelligence just to go for a war.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama is getting flak from his own party supporters for this. I doubt he will go into this mess with a complete military assault. I don't think there will be boots on the ground' date=' just military support to the Syrian rebels[/quote'] Libya part 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

USA first ****ed that country up by supporting the rebels' date=' and now it looks that it will do so by direct military intervention. Its really sad seeing such a [b']great country acting this way and even more sad seeing the plight of Syrians because of this.
:hmmm:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Support for the opposition according to wiki
France and Britain In June 2012, Reuters suggested that the prospect of British special forces entering Syria on the ground is growing, following unconfirmed reports from an Israeli website that SAS Commandos were conducting covert operations within Syrian territory, operating from Turkey on 26 June 2012.[12] At a conference in Paris in July 2012, Western and Sunni Arab countries nonetheless announced they were going to "massively increase" aid to the Syrian opposition.[13] In 2012, the United States,[14] United Kingdom[15] and France[16] provided opposition forces with non-lethal military aid, including communications equipment and medical supplies. The U.K. was also reported to have provided intelligence support from its Cyprus bases, revealing Syrian military movements to Turkish officials, who then pass on the information to the FSA.[17] A crucial line of support began in spring 2012 as Saudi Arabia and Qatar announced they would begin arming and bankrolling the opposition.[18][19] Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Centre in Beirut, and Emile Hokayem of the International Institute of Strategic Studies argued such support would be unlikely to immediately make a decisive impact.[20][21] A ship carrying weapons from Libya believed destined for Syria's rebels has also been intercepted.[22] Qatar is reported to be shipping arms to Sunni Islamists in Syria as a means of cementing alliances in the Middle East.[23] On 22 April 2013 the European Union lifted its embargo on Syrian oil to import barrels directly from rebel groups. Several of the oil fields are believed to be under control of Jabhat al-Nusra. Some analysts say the decision might also set up a deadly competition between rebel groups over the resource.[24] In late August 2013 a number of commercial pilots and local residents have reported seeing increased numbers of British military aircraft at RAF Akrotiri including C-130 transports and fighter aircraft. [25] United States In June 2012, the Central Intelligence Agency was reported to be involved in covert operations along the Turkish-Syrian border, where agents investigated rebel groups, recommending arms providers which groups to give aid to. Agents also helped opposition forces develop supply routes, and provided them with communications training.[26] CIA operatives distributed assault rifles, anti-tank rocket launchers and other ammunition to Syrian opposition. The State Department has reportedly allocated $15 million for civilian opposition groups in Syria.[27] In July 2012, the United States government granted a non-governmental organization called Syrian Support Group a license to fund the Free Syrian Army.[28] In early March 2013, a Jordanian security source revealed that the United States, Britain, and France were training non-Islamist rebels in Jordan.[29] In April 2013, the Obama administration promised to double non-lethal aid to rebels, specifically to $250 million.[30] On 13 June, government officials state that the Obama administration, after days of high-level meetings, has approved providing lethal arms to the Supreme Military Council (SMC).[31] The SMC is a rebel command structure that includes representatives from most major rebel groups, and excludes the Islamic extremist elements.[32] The decision was made shortly after the administration has concluded that the Assad government has used chemical weapons on opposition forces, thus crossing the "red line" drawn by Obama earlier in 2012.[33] The arms will include small arms and ammunition, and possibly anti-tank weapons.[34] However, they will not include anti-aircraft weapons, something repeatedly requested by the armed opposition.[34] Further such weapons would be supplied by the US "on our own timeline".[35] The United States is also considering a no-fly zone in southern Syria, which would allow a safe place to equip and train rebels.[36] An argument exists that the Obama administration is not interested in a quick victory in Syria, instead it wants a protracted conflict to drain Iranian and Hezbollah resources.[37][38][39] On August 26, the United States deployed ships near Syria amidst a United Nations investigation concerning allegations that Syrian president al-Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. The following ships were deployed: USS Barry, USS Gravely, USS Mahan, and USS Ramage.[40]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah' date=' USA is the greatest country in the world. What they have done in Syria is a blot on their greatness like many other major mistakes by them in the past.[/quote'] blot on their greatness? What they do is a necessity to stay on the top. It is an absolute requirement that they screw the weaklings at bottom of the food chain. Which country in the history of this planet has remained on the top without screwing over other countries?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah' date= USA is the greatest country in the world. What they have done in Syria is a blot on their greatness like many other major mistakes by them in the past.
I doubt if innocent victims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, East Timor, Nicargua,Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, Palestine and list goes on and on would agree with that assessment. I love a lot of things about the country, but greatest is not the word I would use. It is a terrorist nation by the very definition of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

blot on their greatness? What they do is a necessity to stay on the top. It is an absolute requirement that they screw the weaklings at bottom of the food chain. Which country in the history of this planet has remained on the top without screwing over other countries?
US will be self sufficient in fuel by 2020 thanks to shale gas. They are messing up syria only due to the strong israeli lobby who wanna lessen Iran's influence in middle east.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt if innocent victims in Afghanistan' date=' Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, East Timor, Nicargua,Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, Palestine and list goes on and on would agree with that assessment. I love a lot of things about the country, but greatest is not the word I would use. It is a terrorist nation by the very definition of it.[/quote'] sure, I understand. But its still a liberal country, a vast country and a democratic country.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US will be self sufficient in fuel by 2020 thanks to shale gas. They are messing up syria only due to the strong israeli lobby who wanna lessen Iran's influence in middle east.
Even if they become self sufficient, they can still control middle east oil which the rest of the world needs. Nice way to make money and exert power. I am not saying it is bad, just that it is a price they have to pay for staying the top dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...