Syrian equation maybe changing

Scotth

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
1,496
Location
Minneapolis, MN
The specter of chemical weapons attacks in the Syrian civil war emerged Tuesday, with the government and rebels each blaming the other for using such munitions.

The embattled government of President Bashar al-Assad accused rebels of a deadly chemical weapons missile attack. At least 25 people died and dozens more were injured Tuesday in the town of Khan al-Asal in Aleppo province, Syrian state media said, quoting government figures. Rebels rebuffed the claims and blamed the regime.

The town of Ateibeh, in eastern Damascus, endured "fierce shelling with chemical rockets," an opposition group said. An unknown number of casualties were reported.

These claims come amid pressure in the West to arm rebels, long overmatched by the Syrian military and its allies. The United States and other world powers have worried that Syria would consider using its chemical weaponry arsenal against fighters trying to topple the al-Assad government. And there is concern that jihadists who are fighting on the side of the opposition could get their hands on chemical weaponry.
remainder of story: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2

We might not be able to avoid a more direct involvement in the near future. I don't think it would involve boots on the ground but an air campaign could end up on the table.
 
So this is why the owner of the company I work for told me good luck in Syria lol

He said good luck in Korea after Lil Kim started his tantrum 2 weeks ago.
 
Not surprised, remember the mortar attack on the market in Bosnia? Everyone blamed the Serbs, but some evidence indicated it came from a muslim enclave. Same goes with the C-160 (IIRC) shootdown, our muslim friends did it to get us to intervene.

There was talk of the exact same thing on the news last night, how it seemed to fit exactly what Obama said was the "red line" for intervention. Seems like someone wants the fight to escalate, could be both sides.
 
I have less than zero interest in fighting in Syria. I think I'd just as soon drop bombs on both sides.
 
I'm getting so tired of that. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, I didn't swear an oath to support and defend everyone, everywhere in the world, all the time.
 
I just hate hearing the people who pissed and moaned about Libya and how we didn't have a strategic reason to be involved there but somehow we should be in Syria? I really can't understand Graham saying we should have boots on the ground in Syria?:rolleyes:

It makes me question who's national security interest some of are legislator's are advocating for.
 
Back
Top