Wehrwolfen
Banned
- Joined
- May 11, 2013
- Messages
- 2,329
- Reaction score
- 402
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Yes, 1,200. But WHO did it?
Does it really matter who? Two major concerns for me: 1) And most important to me right now, that 1,200 people were killed today by poisonous gas, and 2) that radical Islamist elements are there as well and might get access to those weapons, bring them here, and this could happen here.
Yes, a valid concern. And you know well that I care about the 1,200 dead today and the 100,000 to date. But if NATO and the US hadn't been helping the insurgents, many of which are al Qaida elements, Assad would have crushed the insurgency long ago and we wouldn't be talking about this now.
by Allahpundit
August 21, 2013
Via David Shor and Aaron Zelin, who was quick this morning in remembering that today’s apparent chemical massacre outside Damascus falls a year to the day from Obama issuing his empty “red line” threat. Is that why Assad did it, to show the world that he’s still alive, kicking, and defying the United States a year after O talked fake-tough about him? The “red line” comment backfired long ago by forcing Obama to take action, however feeble, in the name of protecting American credibility. Who knows if he would have decided to arm the Syrian rebels if he hadn’t boxed himself in rhetorically? (Which, actually, might explain why the rebels haven’t received those arms yet.) If this new chemical attack was a reaction to his comments last year, though, that’s a backfire of historic dimensions.
Obama continues to carry his Red pen to draw the other redlines he makes but refuses to cross.
Trust me, I know you are concerned. And I know how much.
We could also say that if Russia hadn't helped Assad, the insurgency would have crushed Assad (they were about to until the Russians stepped in) and we wouldn't be talking about this right now either.
[Russia uses Syria as it's only port in the region for it's Navy. Without it, they would have to transit through the Red Sea to restock and replenish their ships.]
The problem there is that both sides of this conflict would love to see the US destroyed. For that reason, let the other countries in the world step up. We need to take a break on this one. But, the problem with that is that our national security is tied to what happens in that region. No win situation for us.
Didn't I see that over a thousand were killed just today by poisonous gas in Syria?
OK, honestly, what do you hope will happen? Should we fully back the rebels with a massive airlift of weaponry? Should we approach Assad and apologize and arm him instead? Should we send in ground forces? Air support?
Obviously his infamous red line was a bluff. Was it not worth a try? He must be embarrassed, is that not enough?
I gave Obama a C- on the poll earlier today so its safe to talk to me. I'll tell you up front that when I have Presidential fantasies, I can't come up with a solution for this one. Isn't that a shocker?
Honestly? I would prefer if Obama made a statement saying he was pulling back support to all factions and then shut his mouth and walk away from the podium.
by Allahpundit
August 21, 2013
Via David Shor and Aaron Zelin, who was quick this morning in remembering that today’s apparent chemical massacre outside Damascus falls a year to the day from Obama issuing his empty “red line” threat. Is that why Assad did it, to show the world that he’s still alive, kicking, and defying the United States a year after O talked fake-tough about him? The “red line” comment backfired long ago by forcing Obama to take action, however feeble, in the name of protecting American credibility. Who knows if he would have decided to arm the Syrian rebels if he hadn’t boxed himself in rhetorically? (Which, actually, might explain why the rebels haven’t received those arms yet.) If this new chemical attack was a reaction to his comments last year, though, that’s a backfire of historic dimensions.
Ed was skeptical earlier, for good reasons, that the attack really was chemical, but U.S. intelligence appears to think it’s legit. It might not be sarin, but it’s something:
“No doubt it’s a chemical release of some variety — and a military release of some variety,” said Gwyn Winfield, the editor of CRBNe World, the trade journal of the unconventional weapons community…
“Because of the intensity of the gas, a majority of victims were found with heavy respiratory secretions, myosis, and muscular spasms,” Layman said, after speaking with the director of the Douma city medical office, a man who goes by the nom de guerre Khaled ad-Doumi. “Atropine, the chemical used to curb the effects of these chemical attacks, has had only limited effects.”
However, Winfield, after examining video and photo evidence of the attack, doubted that pure sarin was involved. “There doesn’t seem to be quite enough mucus or saliva for a pure organophosphate,” he said, referring to the class of chemical to which nerve gases belong. “No doubt it’s a chemical release of some variety … But it’s too weak for a pure sarin release.”
“If indeed 600 [or more] people were killed, the attack would have had to involve a large amount of chemical agent,” Elleman said. “Which means it would have had to be delivered in a very deliberate fashion, and that would be a strong indicator that it was deliberate use or not accidental use, or just spraying munitions, which may be what happened in the past – we don’t know."
The UN’s holding an emergency session this afternoon, but nothing can happen at the Security Council if, as expected, Russia vetoes whatever’s proposed. Is that likely to happen? You tell me.
[Excerpt]
Read more:
One year ago today: Obama warns Assad not to cross the “red line” of chemical weapons « Hot Air
Obama continues to carry his Red pen to draw the other redlines he makes but refuses to cross.
[B[/B]]Honestly? I would prefer if Obama made a statement saying he was pulling back support to all factions and then shut his mouth and walk away from the podium.
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?