Syria 'chemical' attack: France says force may be needed

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Syria 'chemical' attack: France says force may be needed


www.bbc.co.uk

France has said that if Syria is proved to have used chemical weapons against its own people it could merit an international "reaction with force".
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 22-8-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Well here we have the first NATO country beating the war drums......

Think we can all see were this is going cant we?

Another middle east intervention that will just make them hate us all more.

Plus seeing as both sides are just as bad as each other who are we even support! The evil dictator or the heart eating cannbals?

Plus can the public even take another war? I know in the UK there will be uproar!




www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 22-8-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   
It behooves the collective of governing politicians that we consider the "what if" scenario as if it were "obviously" true. I wonder why we don't ever seem to remember how easily we have been deceived in the past?

It's not that I don't agree that is what we should do if true... but I can't simply trust the theatrical productions which the politicians and media people come up with anymore. They have so often mis-characterized and distorted reality, I have reached a point where I wouldn't be surprised if CIA operatives and hireling in the regions put on Syrian Army uniforms and perpetrated the attack just to "prove" it was the Syrian government - who has been repeatedly targeted by multiple governments for "special" hostilities of the oil/financial/starving the poor citizens kind.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Lets let France lead the way then. And since this political leaders thinks its such a good idea, how about he leads the charge on the frontlines.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 
Then we have one of 4 options :let France take the lead and make a mess like they did in Nam and then let the US clean it up and become a bigger mess,
or let the US do it right the first time, let them fight it out and the US NATO stay out of it, let them fight it out amongst them selves, Chem weapons or not it is their fight er war let them deal with it , for if we the US NATO go in we are facing an other Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan mess.
let the US NATO forces go in and clean the mess up, an other 10 year war that would lead to a mid east war , that would become a ww3 mess
or let Russia deal with them, yea an other Russian mess to deal with but which is lesser of the evils.
France US NATO or Russia or let the Syria mess run its course.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by crazyewok

Well here we have the first NATO country beating the war drums......

Think we can all see were this is going cant we?

Another middle east intervention that will just make them hate us all more.

Plus seeing as both sides are just as bad as each other who are we even support! The evil dictator or the heart eating cannbals?

Plus can the public even take another war? I know in the UK there will be uproar!






www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 22-8-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

DId you see the front of the Mirror today? Rows of dead children. Very emotive, horrible sight.
edit on 22-8-2013 by thedoctorswife because: spacing.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by thedoctorswife
 


Yeah dead children.

NATO going in is not going to solve anything is it? didnt solve anything in Iraq or Afghanistan did it?
It will just make things worse.

Theres nothing the west can do to fix it. Think with logic not emotion.

The whole "think of the Children" argument ends up causing more trouble than its worth and end up with more dead children!



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Well, I think the west's attempt at "covert regime change" has obviously failed, hence why NATO allies are supporting the rebels.

Well, the rebels aren't doing as well as everyone involved thought -- and this is dragging on far to long. NATO's allies will eventually send in forces to ensure Assad is taken out.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Well, I think the west's attempt at "covert regime change" has obviously failed, hence why NATO allies are supporting the rebels.

Well, the rebels aren't doing as well as everyone involved thought -- and this is dragging on far to long. NATO's allies will eventually send in forces to ensure Assad is taken out.


I am disinclined to argue against your point.


All of what I have learned over the years points to some cabal of international politicians (and their chain of command) have designated certain governments as "targets" for abuse.

I wish these damn politicians would fight amongst themselves. (I propose that only direct defense from invasion justifies the use of national resources in war) They should just target each other. Instead they lie and make believe "they" hate "us."
edit on 22-8-2013 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazyewok
Plus can the public even take another war? I know in the UK there will be uproar!


I doubt there will be, to be honest. Most people would support limited action designed to stop the use of chemical weapons, regardless of who is actually using them and I think to a further extent, to enforce a ceasefire so the killing can stop.

As long as we remain impartial that is, which is the only fair way the international community should react - however, something tells me that it would be regime forces targeted the most while the more extreme rebel groups are left untouched.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


Stop with the French bashing, dude. There are plenty of examples of the US bodging their little wars up too, not least Vietnam as well.

France did a bang up job in Mali - sorted it all out and they've just had elections which were judged free and fair. All in 6 months.... How long has the US been in it's little sandboxes?



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by bekod
 


Stop with the French bashing, dude. There are plenty of examples of the US bodging their little wars up too, not least Vietnam as well.

France did a bang up job in Mali - sorted it all out and they've just had elections which were judged free and fair. All in 6 months.... How long has the US been in it's little sandboxes?


Totally agree with you Stu, sick of certain people bashing other countries when they should have a damned good look at their own country first!

Just for info a public telephone poll by RMC info radio over here in France this morning stated that 75% of the French population are against a possible French military intervention in Syria.

Kindest respects

Rodinus



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Yep this world was truly gone insane when the French are the first ones who are 'beating the war drums'.

France ?




posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 
Oh they did did they?? well then explain this www.reuters.com... Did the french not say "we should be out by march", Just my 2 cents worth with in a month or 2 France to ask US for help in Mali an other France mess or as you would say Cock up, er mess. . And yes the US is no better but it does seem we just go in after the fact, Iraq and Afghanistan where our own doing, just an other mess left undone.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by bekod
 


Stop with the French bashing, dude. There are plenty of examples of the US bodging their little wars up too, not least Vietnam as well.

France did a bang up job in Mali - sorted it all out and they've just had elections which were judged free and fair. All in 6 months.... How long has the US been in it's little sandboxes?


They didn't do such a bang up job in Vietnam someone else had to come clean up their mess.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
The problem with Syria is their are so many sides.

The traditional rebels made up of most of the old Syrian Army that changes sides, this is the group that the West supports. This group has is pretty good at fighting and has Syrian Army heavy weapons but limited in its ability to organize and run the areas in its control. That makes them vulnerable to the next group.

The Islamic extremist made up of different groups. They fight the pro Assad forces most of the time and clash with the rebels and Kurds on occasion as well. They specailze in bombings and small arms combat but lack the heavy weapons of the rebels. They however are very good at on the ground organization and work desperatly to convert the rebel held areas to thier beliefs. Idealy for them Assad and the Rebels will wreck each other they will pick up the pieces.

The Kurds. They have their spot and want to keep it. They clash with everybody on all sides who pose a threat to their area.

Assad and the pro goverment Syrians made up with the parts of the Syrian military that stayed loyal and militias recruited from Assad loyalist areas. Lack of faith in many of the remaining army units means most of the fighting is left to Assads allies.

Iranian forces for a time were all that was keeping Assad in the game. With the arrival of Hezbollah and Lebanese forces they have been given some breathing room.

Hezbollah has taken up the brunt of the fighting for the Assad side. Well trained and armed and fighting for survival. If Assad falls then so will Syrias control over pro Hezbollah Lebanon and all of their safe areas. A loss for Assad would mean the death of Hezbollah.

Lebanses militias have also come Assads aid because if Assad falls so does their side currently in power in Lebanon.

So for the West they support one out of 7 groups figting in Syria all for different reasons. The support the rebels but not radicals. The fear in the West is you similar scenerio to China at the end of WW2. With the Nationalist in the role of the rebels, Assad in the role of Japan and the radicals in the role of the communist. The last thing the west wants is for this to follow that model. How do you stop it? That is one good questions.

If you do nothing to aid the rebels they will embrace the only people who helped them, the radicals. If you help the rebels the radicals can portary the rebels as tools of the west. We had the same problem in Bosnia but, in this case it is much more complex. No easy answers here.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


Let's not forget that Russia and Iran are backing Assad in this muckety-muck-muck situation.

We need to stay out.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Who is responsible?

Syria = those whose 'gravitas' allows them to commit to use violence.
US = those whose 'gravitas' allows them to commit to use violence.
UK = those whose 'gravitas' allows them to commit to use violence.
Iran = those whose 'gravitas' allows them to commit to use violence.
Israel = those whose 'gravitas' allows them to commit to use violence.
Lebanon = those whose 'gravitas' allows them to commit to use violence.

etc...

Collectively these include Politicians (who pretend their mandate comes from the citizens,) Leaders of religious institutions (who pretend what they want is what God wants,) Lawyers (who don't bother with pretense - they want it all,) and The self-proclaimed "elites" (Royalty, Cartel Moguls, and organized crime lords.)

In NO case it is a matter of "the people's will."

Overt and covert hostilities do not "serve" the people EVER... they serve those groups above ALWAYS.
edit on 22-8-2013 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
well the mess is going to be a real big mess now Obama is being put in a spot , France, Briton, Turkey, and Israel all agree that "force" must be used www.reuters.com... from the link

Obama faces growing calls to act over Syria gas attack claims

inShare1
Share this
Email
Print

Related News

Rockets from Lebanon fired at northern Israel, no casualties
2:09pm EDT
Russia: Syria, U.N. should agree on inquiry into alleged chemical attack
11:19am EDT
A moment of truth in Damascus and Washington
10:27am EDT
Israel says world paying 'lip service' to alleged Syria gas attacks
8:20am EDT
Germany urges access for U.N. to check Syria chemical attack reports
4:49am EDT

Analysis & Opinion

Leaders demand Syria allow U.N. to investigate into alleged chemical attack
A moment of truth in Damascus and Washington

Related Topics

Politics »
United Nations »

By Matt Spetalnick and Patricia Zengerle

WASHINGTON | Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:26pm EDT

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Thursday faced growing calls at home and abroad for forceful action against the Syrian government over accusations that it carried out a massive deadly chemical weapons attack.

While the White House said it was "appalled" by reports of hundreds of people gassed near Damascus on Wednesday, it made clear that any U.S. response must await confirmation of the attack and again demanded that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad give U.N. inspectors immediate access to the sites of the alleged attacks.

The Obama administration's cautious response underscored a reluctance by Washington to intervene in Syria since the country's civil war erupted 2-1/2 years ago.

But if allegations of a large-scale chemical attack are verified, Obama will surely face heavy pressure to act more aggressively, possibly even with military force, in response to repeated violations of U.S. "red lines."

The consensus in Washington and allied capitals is that a concerted international response can only succeed if the United States takes the lead. But Obama has shown no appetite for intervention, mindful of opinion polls showing most Americans opposed to a new military entanglements in the Muslim world.

Despite that, pressure was mounting as horrific photos and videos of alleged chemical weapons victims spread across the Internet.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said world powers must respond with force if allegations that Syria's government was responsible for the deadliest chemical attack on civilians in a quarter-century prove true. But even Fabius stressed there was no question of sending in troops on the ground.

Britain, too, said no option should be ruled out "that might save innocent lives in Syria." And Turkey said "all red lines" had been crossed in Syria and criticized international inaction.

Israel said it believed Syrian forces had used chemical weapons in the killing of hundreds of people in the rebel-held suburbs of Damascus, and it accused the world of turning a blind eye to such attacks.

In Washington, the Syrian opposition's claims of a horrific gas attack by Assad's loyalists sparked new calls for action from Capitol Hill.
well be have been wanting waiting for ww3, I will state the wait is over dfor it is none other than JM from AZ USA to lead the way continued from the link

The latest Syria controversy has added to a growing perception of foreign policy troubles for Obama early in his second term. He is facing criticism for his inability to influence Egyptian generals in that country's political crisis and for failing to persuade Russia to extradite fugitive former spy agency contractor Edward Snowden.

Pressing ahead on Thursday with a two-day bus tour in the Northeast to promote his economic agenda, Obama made no mention of Syria in his first public appearance.

"The fact that we are doing this bus tour is an indication that the president has his priorities straight while he continues to monitor what is an increasingly tragic situation in Syria," White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters.

MCCAIN CALLS FOR 'DECISIVE ACTIONS'

Republican Senator John McCain said the "credible reports" from Syria suggesting that Assad's forces had escalated their use of chemical weapons "should shock our collective conscience."

McCain, one of the most influential voices in Congress on foreign policy matters and a harsh critic of Obama's Syria policy, said U.S. inaction would encourage other governments to use harsh measures against their own people.

"It is long past time for the United States and our friends and allies to respond to Assad's continuing mass atrocities in Syria with decisive actions, including limited military strikes to degrade Assad's air power and ballistic missile capabilities," he said in a statement.

Both Democratic and Republican congressional aides expressed frustration with what they deem the Obama administration's failure to communicate with members of the Senate and House of Representatives on the crisis in Syria, except for members of the intelligence committees.

Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he was "shocked and deeply concerned" about the reported chemical weapons attack and the United Nations should investigate.

But he stopped short of calling for military action.

The top U.S. military officer, Joint Chiefs chairman General Martin Dempsey, canceled a planned press briefing on security issues on Thursday. Dempsey, in letters to U.S. lawmakers, has made clear the armed forces judge that intervention in Syria would be costly and have an uncertain outcome.

Many members of Congress also have expressed deep concern about U.S. involvement in the Syrian crisis, worried that weapons sent to the rebels fighting to oust Assad could end up in the hands of militants who would use them against the United States and its allies.

Syrian authorities have called allegations against their forces "illogical and fabricated," pointing to the timing of the attack and their previous assertions that, if they possessed chemical weapons, they would never use them against Syrians.

Key Assad ally Moscow pointed the finger at a "provocation" by rebels keen to draw in Western military assistance.

The Obama administration has joined with other countries in demanding that Assad allow a U.N. chemical weapons team already on the ground in Syria to do its work.

White House spokesman Earnest said the way for the Syrian government to prove its denials is "to allow the U.N. team full access to the site to try to get to the bottom of what happened."

Unless U.N. inspectors are able to conduct an on-site investigation, it could take some time for U.S. officials to sift through photographs, video and intelligence to determine whether the Syrian opposition's reports are credible.

An earlier U.S. investigation of alleged Syrian chemical weapons use took months to conclude that Assad's forces had used small amounts of sarin gas in attacks during the previous year.

(Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton and Mark Hosenball; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)
Iran Russia put up with western boots in Syria? I think not and do not for China they there as well.
edit on 22-8-2013 by bekod because: line edit



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Okay...so what's the price of the new IPHONE please...!

#iphone crap asside, so what does the #ats #conspiracy #theorists think of such a move. #Syria #chemical #warfare after so many months. Timed to a tea upon inspection from #nato.

What...you all thought that ats was not being combed...#lol



edit on 22-8-2013 by Manipulativebehavior because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join