Obama warns Syria chemical weapons use may spark US action

Obama warns Syria chemical weapons use may spark US action

www.bbc.co.uk

US President Barack Obama has said the use of chemical weapons by Syria would be a "red line" that would change his thinking on intervention in the crisis.

He said he had "at this point not ordered military engagement".

But he added: "There would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons."

(visit the link for the full news article)

we have unconfirmed reports:

However, the BBC's Kim Ghattas in Washington says the US has seen unconfirmed reports recently that the Syrian authorities have been moving the country's chemical arms stockpile.

And now, stronger language from the President in regards to WMD's..

Seems we have went through this not so long ago...

Same old same old, or credible threat this time?

I guess time holds all the answers..



www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm pretty sure their chemical weapons have "Made in USA" stamped on them.

The US is going to come up with some reason to start World War 3....Still think that Obama has a little "October Surprise" in store for us. I can no longer believe anything I'm told when it comes to the middle east. We're itching to get in there, and suddenly there's a problem. What a coinkidink.

This whole Syrian mess is to remove Assad. Therefore Syria no longer will be ally for the Russians. I think that is part of the plan anyways.

Originally posted by JacKatMtn


we have unconfirmed reports:

However, the BBC's Kim Ghattas in Washington says the US has seen unconfirmed reports recently that the Syrian authorities have been moving the country's chemical arms stockpile.

And now, stronger language from the President in regards to WMD's..

Seems we have went through this not so long ago...

Same old same old, or credible threat this time
I guess time holds all the answers..



www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Obama can talk tough but there is no way in hell American troops will ever set foot on Syrian soil. Without Russian approval and backing.

>Nukes a country.
>Warns country not to use chemical weapons.

It's not the 'same.'

Obama, for whatever reason, has demonstrated a willingness and resolve to aid the efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Since he got his pee-pee smacked the last time he unilaterally ordered military action in support of another country's revolution, he's trying to gain a little traction in the Syrian issue.

Honestly, I doubt Syria will resort to chemical weapons. It doesn't make sound strategic or tactical sense; and it's not an issue like Saddam's gassing of the Kurds (a cultural divide existed there that I don't completely comprehend and don't expect members of this forum to, either).

I think Obama is just playing the political game, here. He's trying to put on a hard face for the electorate while simultaneously implying that the rebels in Syria are justified in their actions because the Syrian government needs the threat of U.S. Military action to convince it to abstain from using chemical weapons.

Back to that old chestnut "Use of WDM's" will get us involved!!

Heard that somewhere before...

Personally I think that the FSA/al cia da, will use chemical weapons and then blame it on Assads forces. We already know that the west is supplying them with men and kit. With the money coming from the Saudies, who seem to be behind a lot of these problems. They helped the USA bring down Russia in the Afghan (Bin ladin). Then they turned up in Lybia and helped to get rid of Gadaffi. Now they are in Syria and we are aiding them to over throw Assad. Yes what better excuse does the peace prize winner need, to kick the whole shebang off.

Originally posted by P12SOLD
This whole Syrian mess is to remove Assad. Therefore Syria no longer will be ally for the Russians. I think that is part of the plan anyways.

That's correct, after Syria there will be other nations that will be attacked to push them out of the Russian sphere.

Also regarding the warning on the movement of chemical weapons, that is total intrusion in any country's affairs. Once a country uses the WMDs then the action should be taken not when the weapons are moved or taken to different storage etc.

reply to post by illuminnaughty


That seems to obvious but...
I think they are a little more clevererererer than that..

I think a ship of the coast will sustain minor damage by a rogue missile or something.

Originally posted by StarTraveller
Back to that old chestnut "Use of WDM's" will get us involved!!

Heard that somewhere before...

There is a bit of difference in pretending that a country has chemical and intends to use them with no proof. And telling a country that we suspect has them that if they actually use them there will be consequences.

reply to post by FissionSurplus



I wouldn't be surprised if we enter another conflict either. Hard to oust a president in war time. I've been sitting on the fence so long over Syria my ass is sore. I'm not sure what to believe. I'm pretty surprised and mildly appalled with all the pro Assad folks around here, but I also don't think the rebels are the glorious force of freedom portrayed at times.

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by FissionSurplus

 

I wouldn't be surprised if we enter another conflict either. Hard to oust a president in war time. I've been sitting on the fence so long over Syria my ass is sore. I'm not sure what to believe. I'm pretty surprised and mildly appalled with all the pro Assad folks around here, but I also don't think the rebels are the glorious force of freedom portrayed at times.

If the same was happening in any other country it would be a terrorist attack or labelled something else.. I don't agree Assad is a saint, but the rebels are persecuting civilians much the same as what Assad has been accused of in the past. The rebels are terrorists. They are terrorising Syria and turnng the country into a warzone. Syria was a peaceful country before those baboons jumped on the scene.

I do not think it would only be the US that would intervene, I think many countries would do so as well as the potential for a chemical attack is all to real. Syria has become a battleground and to be honest I cannot tell what is actually going on half the time. You basically have a civil war, a crisis which is deepening and now a potential global threat of a chemical attack. This is like one of them mad stories from Call of Duty! I sincerely hope there is some military intervention in Syria either by the US or the UK to quell this on-going situation.

"OH NO!!! Did you hear????? WMD's!!!!! it must be true!!!!!!"

"NUKE EM" "NUKE EM" "POUR THE SOLDIERS IN QUICK!!!!"

What utter tosh, make my bloody blood boil.

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We had the "they have WMD's people" concerned talk last night on Australian television.

Then this morning Obama.

Bingo. It's on

At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if NATO forces are waiting for the summer to end to attack Syria, after Syria vowed to use Chemical Weapons on an invading force.
Why? Well, ever worn an NBC suit and/or Gas Mask? Gets very hot VERY quickly, and there is only a finite amount of water you can take with you. Sounds like a small reason, but what's the point in sending troops to a battlefield in which they can't fight

I do hope cooler heads prevail, because the last time I checked, the 'war' in Iraq and Afghanistan cost a cool penny! We are letting go of some of our best in the military, but can afford a possible confrontation with Syria? Say it aint so..

reply to post by SepticSceptic


It's so