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

Originally posted by crazyewok

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)

And if that be the case then I think the french troops should take the lead on the front lines. If we would just leave them alone they would be doing what they've been doing for centuries which is to do what we still see today. They would be fighting with each other and leaving the west alone.

reply to post by RedCairo


I suppose we have to justify our massive defense spending somehow, no use having all those neat toys if you never get to play with them after all.

reply to post by Thorneblood

I suppose. But wouldn't it seem more productive to have a few wars we could actually win?

reply to post by RedCairo


With who?
I am all for winning wars but any fight with the big boys would cause more destruction then it would be worth.
That really just leaves the small wars with places like Syria.

Syria? A small war? ROFL :-)

Famous last words, as my mother used to say.

Naw. Sadly, it wouldn't matter if we attacked a perfectly harmless, tiny, sweet little country like Estonia, which we'd probably think we were up to -- all our enemies (read: over half the planet) would show up there and channel funds, personnel and weaponry "through" their borders into the war, and, much like Iraq et al, we'd be fighting a not-quite-world-war in a box. And the people at home would be sitting in front of the TV going, "Cool videos! Wait, have we won yet? Why not?"

Then again, if I were an evil overlord, forget the middle east, I'd just conquer a couple small islands or use the ones conveniently cleared by nuclear testing to make a big, big lab and then destroy the enemy's culture through freely available, horribly addictive but often insidiously subtle, death-by-a-million-metabolic-papercuts drugs, many found in the most common foods.

Oh wait. Maybe someone already thought of that!...

hallo ATS,

I just found out you cannot delete your account, so it was suggested in a thread to get banned, which is an ok plan B for me. I am an 'jewish user' expelled from an unnamed alternative news website. I've been frequenting that place since 2008, and I was kicked out around 3 and half months ago, so I got tired of waiting for the i.p./mass i.p. rejection to be lifted. I choose to hitchhike out of here honestly, because I am offended by the user names and images allowed. I wanted to post my 'ban me bro please' message in the Bully Pulpit, however, for some reason I am not allowed to view that forum. Anyways, the politest way to be not allowed/freed from this situation is the following: GLP, otherwise known as GodLikeProductions, is a wonderful website, on par with AboveTopSecret, thanks for your time and I might see you later if I am not kicked out. Over at GLP if you mention ATS, automatic ban, as some already know.

The negativity in this thread is venemous. Assad has very plausibly killed a 1000 people using chemical warfare and yet people in this thread are trying to justify it. I swear, the internet is to fault for this. The internet gives everybody an equal say and that's not right. It makes people who grew up on it think all sides are equal and everybody should be given equal time. The problem is that our enemy does not follow the rules and does not recognize democracy. We're coming to a point where we must act swiftly to defeat an enemy and yet with the internet-savvy generation action is delayed because of the hesitation to act. This is an information war and we're losing.

Believe it or not, but the internet is more like a cloud of confusion than a source of information. What we need is to get people off the internet and out into the real world to see it with their own eyes. What we need is an internet 2.0 that doesn't give everything equal consideration. There needs to be more law and order. Many websites need to be shutdown. There needs be a larger opposition to bad information. People need to be more critical of what they read.

I'm being serious. The internet is essentially anarchy and it weakens us.

(the post below is a perfect example of this blurring of the important issues. ask yoruself if giving syrian state tv equal say versus the UN or even a western source is appropriate?)

reply to post by sirian12
well Goofy Like Pickles is not the best site to be on nor be a member of ATS is and always will be Number one, welcome to ATS. Now back on to the Syria subject, the latest on Syria US intervention www.haaretz.com... and here globalclarity.wordpress.com... and can not forget CNN www.cnn.com... nor NBC usnews.nbcnews.com...

then to have the flip side on the coin to show i am not biased worldnews.nbcnews.com... from the link

syrian-state-tv-government-soldiers-enter-rebel-tunnels-find-chemical-agents?

Big question did the Syrian army put them there or where they put there by the rebels ??? and if they where there does this mean we should stay out of it and let more die or go in and kill more to stop the killing of more?

Now if we where to get a bead on the leader ship and high ranking officials then by all means do it!!!; but to go in and blaze a path of destruction killing more, is not an option in my opinion. usnews.nbcnews.com...

reply to post by jonnywhite
and thus the world turns.... there will be 2 sides to every coin er story, and as far as getting to the truth... what do you suggest we all go there and see for our selves not likely to happen. or have just one page link that goes by your thinking , which is not clear are you for the rebels or for Syria Gov. forces ? yes i am serious...

Yes Syria did this but which side the rebels to them selves a cry for US intervention or Syria forces that would be there down fall by US forces, seems to me a lose lose situation by both sides, and a big lose to the US if we do go in by Air, Cruse[ NAVY] or troops er boots on the ground.

Is Gog Magog simply hogwash, prophesy beginning to fulfill itself or world powers simply coincidentally following the script rather closely? and why is there a U.N. outpost on the summit of Mt. Hermon in the Golan Heights on the border between Lebanon and Syria, the supposed legendary gateway of the Abyss.

If the NWO is coming to full fruition, this war must and will happen, the bonesmen , illuminist and occultists have told us many times.

So, Great Loving People is and always will be Number 2? Checking in and never allowed to leave, is akin to a developing or third world mental institution, where 'parole' cannot be granted for the sole reason the person or persons have no medical insurance or cannot afford it

Wouldn't intervention exasperate the situation? surely negotiation is the only way.

War is ugly there are atrocities on both sides in all wars. Chemical weapons are abhorrent. I remember the pictures of the victims in the Vietnam War.

What country has benefited from the West's intervention in recent times, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan?, more have died post our meddling, and of course these countries are in complete disarray.

Truth is a casualty of war, we do not and will not imo ever know the truth of who is behind these chemical weapons. Obviously it is all about regime change our PTB want every citizen to enjoy the same democratic freedoms we enjoy.......cynical sigh.......its about puppets for the masters.

Well, Mexico's government is completely pwned by the cartels. If some guy gassed the bus station and then claimed the government did it, would the US feel obliged to go in and 'take over,' and after blowing up a bunch of stuff, 'rebuild' better infrastructure?

Actually I think there was once a book about this, about some guys in a rowboat who came to declare war on America just to get us to go to their homeland and build military bases and improve their economy or something. (Well that certainly hasn't worked for Iraq or Afghanistan alas.)

I mean, let's think about this, why would we be using this as an excuse to invade an entire country? Did we invade countries who did exactly the same thing when we were behind the evil minion doing it?

What about the Halabja genocide gas attack against the Turks? wiki
The US was actually more on the side of Hussein then than Iran, so we blamed it on Iran. Until it started looking like we might invade Iraq instead, then we changed our minds and blamed it on Iraq.

Is this just another "predictive, more than reportive" news event existing solely to try and inflame the population into supporting yet more expansion of the war?

Originally posted by RedCairo

Actually I think there was once a book about this, about some guys in a rowboat who came to declare war on America just to get us to go to their homeland and build military bases and improve their economy or something. (Well that certainly hasn't worked for Iraq or Afghanistan alas.)

Yes, there was. Made into an entertaining movie too with Peter Sellers.

en.wikipedia.org...

We need to keep out of this mess. I have no doubt there is fabrication and atrocity on all sides. The only side that can be supported to victory with no danger of an Islamist government is the Assad regime. Unfortunately from day one the west made him the 'baddie' of the narrative and its too embarrassing to reverse course now.

The current western diplomats involved here will not be judged kindly by history they have bungled it massively. They made a mistake backing the revolution and they are determined to keep doubling down on the mistake. Even if it means providing support to the same Islamic nuts we've been fighting elsewhere for the past decade.

The US France the UK and other needs to park their hardware someplace after pulling out of Afganistan and Iraq. other wise the populace will see all of that stuff brought back home, and put somewhere to rust. and people will see news stories about there hard earned sitting rusting.
buy the way does you realize that the US has to pay the packistanies thousands of dollars per vehicle to cross their country. getting all of that tech out is going to be bloody expensive and dangerious, an army in retreat is always the most vulnerable. I guess the'll use contractors on the way out. save official losses on exiting.

Sorry, what happened in Syria is appalling, but the longer that this war goes on the more fractured and cayotic it will get and more likely that WMD for real will get into the hands of people who are not so dissirable. My personal opinion is that is is probably to late to go into sirya anyway, to many factional problems. they might just bite and hold onto known chemical weapons sites. more risky to special forces but also giving limited objective, to which you can justify to the UN without much in the way of issues. holding on to those sites would be the problem, without air support it would be doomed, which means neutralizing syrian air power, their lies the biggest problem not increasing the combat radius in the middle of a civil war.

Here we go again.
History is repeating itself.
When the economy sucks, start a wart.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Manipulativebehavior

 

I've found this first round of cerebral chess quite interesting.

"I've found this first round of cerebral chess quite interesting"

That was no round, that was a simple "hello"

link

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by alphabetaone

 

Quite what the point of you're rant was, I'm not so sure nor do I know why it is directed at me.

My post, which you quoted, was in response to the other chap saying the people of the UK would be in "uproar" about any intervention.

My point is, that upon the usage of real chemical weapons on a civilian population with no outcry, do you think there would be outcry on an intervention that needed very little to subdue another civilian population? Or any war that would last 5 minutes? Hardly.

Originally posted by stumason
I replied in saying that I doubt they would and in fact, I suspect they would support a limited military operation under the guise of preventing further chemical attacks or enforcing a ceasefire.

Again you're making my point for me. IF the UK would condone (under the guise of combatant only usage) chemical weapons, why on Earth would they want to appear as though they are trying to intervene to CEASE it? No one would really be fooled.

Originally posted by stumason
Nothing at all to do with the UK Governments position on phosphorous nor how it handles its use by the USA....

How any country at all handles the usage of chemical weapons is exactly the point of this thread....for you to not have a position on it or responding to anothers position on it, makes your posts, merely academic then, doesnt it?

Originally posted by stumason
Me thinks you're a tad confused and you've just come off as just a tiny bit strange........

edit on 22/8/13 by stumason because: Spelling

Certainly, if sound logic is viewed by you as strange ... your opinion of ME is of little consequence lol