Syria used Chemical weapons?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GaryTaylor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Notice how quickly the White House is backpeddling, saying that the intelligence is not enough to say for sure. They really don’t want to have to follow through on all that red line talk.
 
Thanks for your service honestly Gary and anyone else. Accidentally pressed on your profile and not the thread!
 
The United Nations should decide if they have them and are using them and then, NATO or the US, not sure possibly act if it is warranted. And of course, some have said perhaps they have some WMDs from Iraq and from Saddam. That is speculation.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
Notice how quickly the White House is backpeddling, saying that the intelligence is not enough to say for sure. They really don’t want to have to follow through on all that red line talk.
Click to expand...
In my view, abundant caution before launching another war is a good thing. There are other nations that are far closer to this conflict who have the capability of dealing with the situation if it is shown that the attacks actually occurred. That said, British intelligence is among the best.
 
oldcelt said:
In my view, abundant caution before launching another war is a good thing. There are other nations that are far closer to this conflict who have the capability of dealing with the situation if it is shown that the attacks actually occurred. That said, British intelligence is among the best.
Click to expand...
While I agree that abundant caution is always needed before conflict and all other avenues should be tried, I think it is damaging to the credibility and diplomatic efforts of a nation when the Chief of State declares something to be a red line that cannot be crossed, and then when presented with evidence that it was crossed does nothing. No one will take the threat seriously, therefore, no one will feel compelled to engage in diplomacy, and therefore, there is more chance of conflict breaking out down the road.
 
Per OldCelt’s comments: It would take research but I thought British Intelligence were the ones who said there were WMDs in Iraq initially, but that could be one version of the story.

I guess if Israel saw it as a threat to their national security, Israel cold act, this could pertain to Turkey as well or whatever countries could be effected.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
While I agree that abundant caution is always needed before conflict and all other avenues should be tried, I think it is damaging to the credibility and diplomatic efforts of a nation when the Chief of State declares something to be a red line that cannot be crossed, and then when presented with evidence that it was crossed does nothing. No one will take the threat seriously, therefore, no one will feel compelled to engage in diplomacy, and therefore, there is more chance of conflict breaking out down the road.
Click to expand...
Not taking the US seriously has proven to be grave mistake for a great many people and nations. There are many actions we can take without putting our forces in harm’s way and I would support one of those if these reports prove to be accurate.
Our military needs a break, and I’m sure that the President is taking that into serious consideration.
 
Wasn’t Syria the location rumored to be where WMDs were covertly exported from Iraq before the UN sent in all the inspectors in 02-03?
 
oldcelt said:
Not taking the US seriously has proven to be grave mistake for a great many people and nations. There are many actions we can take without putting our forces in harm’s way and I would support one of those if these reports prove to be accurate.
Our military needs a break, and I’m sure that the President is taking that into serious consideration.
Click to expand...
The only thing the President is doing in this case is burying his head in the sand and saying whatever evidence is being presented is not enough. I am not saying that we have to put boots on the ground, I am saying that we cannot do nothing.
 
Well the west got it totally wrong once before. If chemical weapons are being used, how do they prove which side is using them the regime or the rebels.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
The only thing the President is doing in this case is burying his head in the sand and saying whatever evidence is being presented is not enough. I am not saying that we have to put boots on the ground, I am saying that we cannot do nothing.
Click to expand...
Not being privy to what the President, or anyone else with top security clearance, knows, I don’t think that any of us are in the position to declare that the President is burying his head in the sand. I doubt very seriously that we will do nothing. I just hope we don’t let ourselves get swept up in war fever…
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
Notice how quickly the White House is backpeddling, saying that the intelligence is not enough to say for sure.
Click to expand...
The intelligence itself says as much. “Varying degrees of confidence” means everything from none at all to absolute certainty. Meaning that there is no consensus on whether chemical weapons were used and, if they were, by whom.
MarcoPolo said:
Wasn’t Syria the location rumored to be where WMDs were covertly exported from Iraq before the UN sent in all the inspectors in 02-03?
Click to expand...
That turned out not to be the case.
 
oldcelt said:
Not being privy to what the President, or anyone else with top security clearance, knows, I don’t think that any of us are in the position to declare that the President is burying his head in the sand. I doubt very seriously that we will do nothing. I just hope we don’t let ourselves get swept up in war fever…
Click to expand...
I agree. Hagel is no coward and neither is Obama. Furthermore, as a second term president looking out for his legacy, Obama has plenty of incentive to want to focus on foreign policy and the military where as commander-in-chief he has a lot of power. Therefore, I see no reason for why he would want to bury his head in the sand.

I for one am glad that Obama and Hagel are in charge of our military at this point in time. I would feel a great deal less confident if it were still in the hands of the neocons.
 
Assad has hung on to power for too long, and the US and it’s allies may be getting desperate. If and when America helps topple his government, and Jihadists gain a bigger foothold than they have now, is everyone still going to believe it’s yet another coincedence ?
 
bellasbane said:
I agree. Hagel is no coward and neither is Obama. Furthermore, as a second term president looking out for his legacy, Obama has plenty of incentive to want to focus on foreign policy and the military where as commander-in-chief he has a lot of power. Therefore, I see no reason for why he would want to bury his head in the sand.

I for one am glad that Obama and Hagel are in charge of our military at this point in time. I would feel a great deal less confident if it were still in the hands of the neocons.
Click to expand...
Oh me too! Nothing like toppling a longtime ally in Egypt, or the head of a de-nuclearized Libya, and placing Islamist regimes in their stead. Those weirdo “neocons” would have probably let those secular strongmen alone (and saved a few US consulate lives).

Viva la revolucion!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top