- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 31,346
- Reaction score
- 19,890
- Location
- East Coast - USA
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
"Today I want to make it absolutely clear to Assad and those under his command: The world is watching," Obama said. "The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable."
So, its OK for other nations to execute their civilians using tanks, rockets, machine guns, grenades and aircraft, but if they use a "WMD" then the U.S. will come to their rescue. That makes total sense to...?
Obama recently said that he wasn't confident that Syrias stockpile was secure and i imagine Obama is more concerned that any chemical or biological weapons will fall into the hands of the wrong people if/when Assad's authority erodes. Assad has been killing his own citizens for 17 months now and he knows there will be no intervention like we saw in Lybia and he seems unconcerned with committing War Crimes. If it keeps up, soon he will have no one left to rule. We will never really know the full truth of what is happening there. The pro-democracy protestors are on their own.
My thoughts and solidarity are with the Syrian people.
How do we know they have them? They've never used them on their own people and no evidence has been produced that they have them at all.
Syria threatened Monday to unleash its chemical and biological weapons if the country faces a foreign attack, a desperate warning from a regime that has failed to crush a powerful and strengthening rebellion.
Syria's first-ever acknowledgment that the country possesses weapons of mass destruction — suggests President Bashar Assad will continue the fight to stay in power, regardless of the cost.
Syria is believed to have nerve agents as well as mustard gas, Scud missiles capable of delivering these lethal chemicals and a variety of advanced conventional arms, including anti-tank rockets and late-model portable anti-aircraft missiles.
During a televised news conference Monday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi stressed that the weapons are secure and would only be used in the case of an external attack.
You thought wrong. Read it properly without conveniently omitting part of the quote to take it out of context.So we don't know they have them. I thought not. From your first article: "all of these types of weapons — IF ANY — are in storage and under security." Even they don't know whether they have any.
During a televised news conference Monday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi stressed that the weapons are secure and would only be used in the case of an external attack. "All of these types of weapons are in storage and under security and the direct supervision of the Syrian armed forces and will never be used unless Syria is exposed to external aggression."
The Syrian government later tried to back off from the announcement, sending journalists an amendment to the prepared statement read out by Makdissi. The amendment said "all of these types of weapons — IF ANY — are in storage and under security." It was an attempt to return to Damascus' position of neither confirming nor denying the existence of non-conventional weapons.
You thought wrong. Read it properly without conveniently omitting part of the quote to take it out of context.
and the rest of the quote you ommitted..
Yes, the official backtracked on what he said, but I doubt whether he really knows for sure, he's likely just a mouthpiece of Assad. I've not seen a picture of any chemical weapons, just high level views of buildings. People have often said that Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq. At least in Iraq there was evidence that they were used on the Kurds. I've seen nothing in either story you posted or in any other news that says that Syria has them. Just implications, innuendo and wordplay. How often in this country does a politician say something and then moments later some correction comes out. Everyone from Obama on down.
Spare me the implication that I'm being deceitful by omitting some wider piece of the article. There is still no proof and some Syrian politician misspeaking or being deliberately deceitful doesn't change that.
Me personally, I think this is a U.N. problem and I would have no problem with the U.S. going in a support role along with other major nations. However, this would be contingent upon major support from the other nations and not just the U.S. footing the bill in money and lives.
Is this a problem the USofA should deal with? Or the UN? Or some other coalition of countries?
I think that everyone should stay out of it unless they are directly involved-- AKA, being attacked by Syria.
They need to get their **** together, and the US is not the solution to their problems.
It is a Human problem. Really nice example of socialist humanity you demonstrate. Based upon your statement, it is clear that you have a rather selfish point of view.
The problem is not that we shouldn't, from a human standpoint, it's that we currently are not set up to do it right and in the end may actually do harm instead of good. Also Syria borders on Israel, a US ally and we certainly have an interest in protecting our allies. Strategically, humanly, morally and ethically, we have a lot of reasons to get involved, but if we are not willing to develop and deploy the tactics necessary for the time needed, then we should stay the hell out of it.
US weighing military options if Syria uses WMD - Yahoo! News <-- clicky
Is this a problem the USofA should deal with? Or the UN? Or some other coalition of countries?
The US, a western government coalition or an Arab government coalition led by the US. Its amazing the level of crap we always find ourselves in the middle of because global oil market stability is crucial to our own economic well being. Oligopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How do we know they have them? They've never used them on their own people and no evidence has been produced that they have them at all.
US weighing military options if Syria uses WMD - Yahoo! News <-- clicky
Is this a problem the USofA should deal with? Or the UN? Or some other coalition of countries?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?