Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
and then

Hagel Confirms Chemical Weps in Syria

18 posts in this topic

Israel said the same thing only few days ago. I wouldn't be surprised if Syria is using it as last choice of ending the conflict. Syria is really struggling and they keep saying they are winning but will Assad supporters think twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the US doesn't like the possibility of Assad using chemical weapons on the same people they don't mind bombing the **** out of?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aww, c'mon coffey

you know we're not barbarians anymore, one endeavors to dispatch ones enemies with a modicum of class

/derisive snort while holding tea-cup with pinky extended as tory candidate paddles me silly

:lol:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the US doesn't like the possibility of Assad using chemical weapons on the same people they don't mind bombing the **** out of?

Frankly it confuses me also. I've long said that no matter WHO wins in Syria, the west loses. But I think Oby has laid a trap for himself by making a "red line" over the use of these things. An Israeli brigadier either slipped and let the cat out of the bag OR intentionally let loose intel he shouldn't have and then Hagel had to fess up. Either way, Obama said if Syria used or moved them too much he would act. I just hope he acts as judiciously as possible. I do NOT want to see US troops in Syria. They have had enough and it's time to bring them home, not add to the burden. If the US is to be involved in Syria, I hope it's quick and extremely dirty. Bomb the everliving CRAP out of every weapons storage, troop barracks, anti aircraft site and even truck park they have. And while we're at it hit a few of the rebel positions as well if we have reliable intel that they are anti US. IOW act with intelligence to help OUR interests if we are risking OUR lives to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

NATO intervention is required in Syria.

Waiting for a red line to be crossed was waiting too long.

Of course the end goal is helping the people, from both sides, restore democracy. Bombings to that effect as in Libya might be a go to option but it should be as in Libya and not the type of bombings and then is advocating.

Allow the Arab Spring to continue.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NATO intervention is required in Syria.

Waiting for a red line to be crossed was waiting too long.

Of course the end goal is helping the people, from both sides, restore democracy. Bombings to that effect as in Libya might be a go to option but it should be as in Libya and not the type of bombings and then is advocating.

Allow the Arab Spring to continue.

That may appear to be the goal. But it is not. Al Qeada is leading the rebels in Syria. The US has already sent Al Qeada hundreds of millions of dollars and millions of dollars worth of equipment. These are the same people who we were fighting in Afganistan.

The ultimate goal is to destable the area surrounding israel.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That may appear to be the goal. But it is not. Al Qeada is leading the rebels in Syria. The US has already sent Al Qeada hundreds of millions of dollars and millions of dollars worth of equipment. These are the same people who we were fighting in Afganistan.

The ultimate goal is to destable the area surrounding israel.

[media=]

[/media]

For what reason? I mean, why would the US want to cause problems for an ally? Especially when WE would have to become involved when they get attacked? It doesn't add up for me.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

For what reason? I mean, why would the US want to cause problems for an ally? Especially when WE would have to become involved when they get attacked? It doesn't add up for me.

Why,I couldn't tell you. Maybe someone is following this freemasonry documentfrom the 1870's (however, it was first released in a book in 1925)

But you cannot deny that the US has backed revolutions in Eygpt, Lybia and now Syria which were fairly peaceful places with US backed dictators. Now they are less peaceful and run by extremist who refuse to recognize Israels right to exist.

Edited by Professor Buzzkill
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That may appear to be the goal. But it is not. Al Qeada is leading the rebels in Syria. The US has already sent Al Qeada hundreds of millions of dollars and millions of dollars worth of equipment. These are the same people who we were fighting in Afganistan.

The ultimate goal is to destable the area surrounding israel.

[media=]

[/media]

That is a powerful video.

The reasons our leaders want to destabalize other countries can only strike me as falling under the mindset that it is good business for some.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never believe a story told by Hagel

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless new news has occurred, the claim of chemical weapons is speculative, though I undertand that there was a "classified" briefing that few will know the details.

However, at least frrom what I understand, the US President does not consider the event, if true, to be one of such severity to "cross the red line" to involve US ground forces. I think we are spread thin enough as it is around the world.

If it were a major chemical attack, I suppose the US/UN would view this differently.

I have not heard that this is a case of widespread chemical weapon use. I could be wrong, of course, but I guess we'll see if there is any validation and whatever US response to the claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless new news has occurred, the claim of chemical weapons is speculative, though I undertand that there was a "classified" briefing that few will know the details.

However, at least frrom what I understand, the US President does not consider the event, if true, to be one of such severity to "cross the red line" to involve US ground forces. I think we are spread thin enough as it is around the world.

If it were a major chemical attack, I suppose the US/UN would view this differently.

I have not heard that this is a case of widespread chemical weapon use. I could be wrong, of course, but I guess we'll see if there is any validation and whatever US response to the claim.

I have made it VERY clear that I don't want US involvement there but having said that, our president has spoken from his bully pulpit and set a "red line". If he simply moves it now as he does domestic issues - at will - he AND the US will be considered paper tigers by other enemies. It is a dangerous thing to be doing in the current atmosphere. I need not tell you that THIS is why US presidents need to be very careful with making such statements. This man is a menace to our country and I will be very glad when he is no longer in that position. If our country has truly shifted "left" then possibly he would be followed by another Clinton - but I refuse to believe that America will fall to so ignoble a place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Chemicals were found in Jordan or Israel, then I think we know what will happen next

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Chemicals were found in Jordan or Israel, then I think we know what will happen next

If chemicals are seen moving to Hezbollah or if they get used against Israel then what Oby wants won't matter much anymore. Assad will get bum rushed and his military will cease to be a fighting force - quickly. As will many of the rebels.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[media=]

[/media]

How's Obama's policies doing after 4+ years? Why isn't Gen. Wesley Clark leading the charge against the Obama administration's neocon chickenhawk foreign policy?

Heck Obama is carrying out what Clark is describing here. Why so mute, General?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Israeli warplanes strike sites near Syria capital

Israeli raids early yesterday hit three military sites outside Damascus, the second such reported attack in 48 hours, prompting Syria’s government to warn that the regional situation was now “more dangerous”.

The raids reportedly targeted weapons bound for Lebanese group Hezbollah and raised new concerns of a conflict spillover.

The Syrian foreign ministry, in a letter to the UN Security Council, said claims it was transferring anything were “unfounded” and accused Israel of co-ordinating with what it called “terrorist groups”.

A diplomatic source in Beirut told AFP the three sites were the Jamraya military facility, a nearby weapons depot and an anti-aircraft unit in Sabura, west of the capital.

“This aggression caused deaths and injuries and serious destruction at the sites and in the surrounding civilian regions,” the foreign ministry letter said.

The Assad cabinet held an emergency meeting, warning afterwards that “the aggression opens the door wide to all possibilities”.</p>

http://www.gulf-times.com/region/216/details/351635/israeli-warplanes-strike--sites-near-syria-capital

And so it goes ....

And there will always be stop and go and fast and slow

Action,Reaction, sticks and stones and broken bones

Those for peace and those for war

And god bless these ones, not those ones

But these ones made times like these

And times like those

What will be will be

And so it goes

And it always goes on and on...

On and on it goes

But somehow I know it won't be the same

Somehow I know it will never be the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it goes, quite so.. But "it" is different for everyone, isn't it? This mess in Syria is going into it's third year and now that Israel has struck weapons that could be transferred and used against them elsewhere, my guess is the world will begin to blame Israel for the entire conflict as well as any future escalation. The song does indeed remain the same but Israel will do what they have to do - let no one doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.