How could Assad use chemical weapons knowing that there is a U.N. resolution against such weapons--any use of them would most likely trigger a U.N. intervention by a coalition force; however, this wasn't the case in Iraq: The U.S. went in guns blazing with the assumption that the Saddam Hussein regime was collaborating with AQ to produce WMD's(or, if there is a better reason someone please let me know), and if I remember correctly, at the time, the U.N. was still investigating for evidence of WMD's. Well, what's the difference between Iraq and Syria; ostensibly, it seems to be the oil. Thus it is not profitable for America to intervene, especially given the delicate domestic political economic situation in America; furthermore, the U.N. is steadily losing its efficacy because it has become a platform for the very cause of the problem.
The rebels need international support. It is a testament to the impotence of the U.N. that they have been incapable of preventing such a massive loss of life; or perhaps it is partially fueled by Russia, who stands to profit by a prolonged war through the sale of firearms. The point is that an international policy incorporating dollar diplomacy and the profit motive as a mechanism NOT humanistic foundations is what we're looking at. When it comes to international politics money speaks; whoever has the most to gain economically is the one who leads the charge, which, in this case is Russia. However, I believe that the best interests of the world truly lie in the immediate intervention and establishment of a new regime, which will be monitored by the U.N.
So Barack Obama needs to step up to the world stage and make sure that happens; however, he is incapable of doing that due to the awful domestic situation here at home; he said recently that we need to be cautious, meanwhile attacking conservatives, but when people are losing their lives daily there is no time to be cautious!!!
Hiya OE.
Why should we make any move again? Why would Terrorists need International Support?
Syria's war splits nation into 3 distinct regions
More than two years into Syria's civil war, the once highly-centralized authoritarian state has effectively split into three distinct parts, each boasting its own flags, security agencies and judicial system.
In each area, religious, ideological and turf power struggles are under way and battle lines tend to ebb and flow, making it impossible to predict exactly what Syria could look like once the combatants lay down their arms. But the longer the bloody conflict drags on, analysts says, the more difficult it will be to piece together a coherent Syrian state from the wreckage.
"There is no doubt that as a distinct single entity, Syria has ceased to exist," said Charles Lister, an analyst at IHS Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Center. "Considering the sheer scale of its territorial losses in some areas of the country, Syria no longer functions as a single all-encompassing unitarily-governed state."
The geographic dividing lines that have emerged over the past two years and effectively cleft the nation in three remain fluid, but the general outlines can be traced on a map.
Moreover, the opposition movement itself is far from monolithic, and there have been increasing outbursts of infighting between al-Qaida affiliated extremists and moderate rebel groups, as well as between Kurds and rebels of a radical Islamic bent. That violence holds the potential to escalate into a full-blown war among armed opposition factions.
In the north, fighter brigades have set up judicial councils known as Shariah courts that dispense their own version of justice based on Islamic law, including in some cases, executions of captured regime soldiers and supporters.
"While there are shifts in momentum on the battlefield, Bashar Assad, in our view, will never rule all of Syria again," Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, told reporters in Washington last month.
The comments appeared to leave open the possibility that while Assad has lost control over large parts of the country, he may well be able to hang on and even expand his core territory in the future.
Syria's partition into mini-states is an ominous scenario for a country that sits along the Middle East's most turbulent fault lines. Any attempt to create an official breakaway state could trigger a wave of sectarian killings and have dangerous repercussions in a region where many religious, ethnic and tribal communities have separatist aspirations.....snip~
Syria's war splits nation into 3 distinct regions
It was the French that started the whining and crying in the first place.....Lets see France step up to the plate and go and handle something on their own for a Change. Rather than just make cheap talk like they always do.
Course the better question is.....did the Rebels actually think their hapless and incompetent asses wouldn't get caught using Chems?