Syria Gas Attack- What Now?

France is about it. And considering the rhetoric coming from the WH folks, they are already embarrassing themselves before a single shot is fired.
We are apparently busy "developing facts" :-/ and trying to craft a response "just muscular enough not to get mocked." :whatever:
Oh, and do finish that up before the president heads to the G-20 summit. We wouldn't want to leave Biden in charge.

MANILA, Philippines (AP) — U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Friday the Obama administration was consulting with allies to "further develop the facts" about last week's alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria, and options for a response.
Click to expand...

A U.S. official briefed on the military options being considered by President Obama told the Los Angeles Times that the White House is seeking a strike on Syria "just muscular enough not to get mocked."
Click to expand...
 
dknob said:
The French government didn't have a problem getting it's feet wet in Mali.
Click to expand...

Yep; and they did a pretty good job there too I think, all things considered.

But we've got to also realize that a large part of French success in Mali was and is directly due to... the American support it received. This would likely be the case in a French-led incursion into Syria as well.
 
Marauder06 said:
Yep; and they did a pretty good job there too I think, all things considered.

But we've got to also realize that a large part of French success in Mali was and is directly due to... the American support it received. This would likely be the case in a French-led incursion into Syria as well.
Click to expand...
France could not have done Mali without our help, same goes for Libya.
I agree, let France be the lead in Syria.
 
Intel says 1,400 + dead on the Aug 21st chemical weapon attack. There's no way we are turning back on this is there?
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...0ee-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html?hpid=z1

"Former and current officers, many with the painful lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan on their minds, said the main reservations concern the potential unintended consequences of launching cruise missiles against Syria.

Some questioned the use of military force as a punitive measure and suggested that the White House lacks a coherent strategy. If the administration is ambivalent about the wisdom of defeating or crippling the Syrian leader, possibly setting the stage for Damascus to fall to fundamentalist rebels, they said, the military objective of strikes on Assad’s military targets is at best ambiguous.

“There’s a broad naivete in the political class about America’s obligations in foreign policy issues, and scary simplicity about the effects that employing American military power can achieve,” said retired Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the run-up to the Iraq war, noting that many of his contemporaries are alarmed by the plan."
 
Hmm Interesting report. Not sure I completely buy into it but they have a hell of a lot more intel than I do.

dknob said:
Intel says 1,400 + dead on the Aug 21st chemical weapon attack. There's no way we are turning back on this is there?
Click to expand...

Nothing would surprise me.
 
dknob said:
Intel says 1,400 + dead on the Aug 21st chemical weapon attack. There's no way we are turning back on this is there?
Click to expand...

I think the line in the sand was drawn a long time ago, conflict is inevitable and sadly I don't think there's a solution to prevent more blood from being spilled. The whole region is a giant quagmire full of shit. If Russia and China want to keep Western boots out of Syria, tell them to sort the fucking mess out. It's time both countries put up or shut up. Otherwise we should just call it a day for Earth and the human race and kick off the giant nuke showdown.
 
Seriously? "High Confidence" has suddenly turned into "no smoking gun?"

We are sending all kinds of mixed signals here.
 
Marauder06 said:
Seriously? "High Confidence" has suddenly turned into "no smoking gun?"

We are sending all kinds of mixed signals here.
Click to expand...

I wonder if they have issued the same statement if the British Parliament had approved military action... :-"
 
A US president, armed with sketchy evidence about chemical weapons, send his Sec. State to make the case for invading a middle eastern nation without any allied support?

What year is it?
 
Freefalling said:
A US president, armed with sketchy evidence about chemical weapons, send his Sec. State to make the case for invading a middle eastern nation without any allied support?

What year is it?
Click to expand...

something about doomed to repeat it...
 
You have to read the Reuters article. There is no smoking gun to Assad himself but there is strong evidence that the government did launch the attacks.
"This was not a rogue operation," one U.S. official said. However the evidence does not prove that Assad himself ordered that chemical munitions be used, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Evidence that forces loyal to Assad were responsible goes beyond the circumstantial to include electronic intercepts and some tentative scientific samples from the neighborhood which was attacked, officials said.
Click to expand...

Do you need a wire tap of Assad saying "fire" to hold him responsible?
 

Similar threads

R.Caerbannog
Economic shifts in Central America and China
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
R.Caerbannog
R.Caerbannog
Marauder06
"Yesterday Was Veterans Day. Today, Call Your Battle Buddy."
Replies
0
Views
54
Marauder06
Marauder06
C
SEAL Officer
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Azrael-x1-
Azrael-x1-
R.Caerbannog
The UN, Migration, and Demographics
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
3K
Topkick
Topkick
Marauder06
Reflections on the War in Iraq
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
4K
Teufel
Teufel
Back
Top