|
should the US intervene in Syria? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Halcyon+On+On |
| There are always warships being rotated throughout the Mediterranean; these Russian ones were scheduled to do so months in advance, not as a response to the US purposely positioning ships in striking range. Russia also maintains a port in Syria, so their skin in this game is not only trade relations with Assad, but their own locale in the country. |
|
|
| Lews |
We're going to slap Assad's hand for breaking the norm against Chemical Weapons and that will be all.
It's rather pointless, but it will make some people feel better, even though it will probably make the situation worse. |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
this has nothing to do with immorality of using chemical weapons. it has to do with other geo-political (see Israel) bull. the US actually helped a country deploy chemical weapons against another. (see below). the US just is looking for an excuse to retaliate against a friend of an enemy of israel.
| quote: | The United States helped Saddam Hussein attack Iran with chemical weapons in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war, it has been claimed.
Ronald Regan's administration, who supported the Iraqi dictator topple two decades later by the Bush government, fed information to Baghdad that helped them launch strikes.
U.S. officials gave Saddam's army details about the whereabouts of Iranian forces in 1988 knowing that he would deploy chemical weapons, Foreign Policy magazine reported.
Iraq used mustard gas and sarin in early 1988 in four major offensives which helped bring about the end of the eight-year conflict.
During the whole war, up to 20,000 Iranian troops were killed by mustard gas and nerve agents from Iraq and 100,000 were wounded.
The Americans have always said that Iraq did not reveal that they would launch chemical strikes.
But documents released in the National Archives and interviews with former serviceman show that the U.S. acquiesced in the use of chemical weapons as they tried to help Saddam with the war
Retired Air Force Colonel Rick Francona, a military attache who was working in Baghdad in 1988, told Foreign Police magazine said that they knew what Saddam was planning.
'The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.
Official documents revealed that the U.S. officials were given detailed information about the use of nerve gas by the Iraqis during the conflict. They indicate that the Americans knew more about Saddam's use of chemical weapons than previously thought.
The CIA's Director of Central Intelligence William J Casey was given detailed intelligence about the efforts of Iraqi chemical weapons plants to produce mustard gas for troops.
The cache of newly-released documents also revealed that the Americans feared the Iranians may launch terror strikes against the U.S. around the world if they had evidence to suggest the Ronald Reagan's administration acquiesced in Saddam's use of chemical weapons.
One secret document from September 1984, headed 'The Islamic bomb: Chemical rather than nuclear?', revealed the scale of Iraq's chemical weapons programme.
It said: 'Iraq has over the last several years developed a substantial CW (chemical weapons) production capability.
Another document, marked 'Top Secret' from January 1985, indicated that the Iraqis would use chemical weapons against Iran.
It said: 'The Iraqis have used chemical weapons in three separate battles beginning in August 1983 and will use chemical weapons on a wide scale in the event of another major Iranian attack.'
The Geneva Protocol of 1925, which the Americans had ratified in 1975, states undertake that they will not use chemical weapons and agree they 'will exert every effort to induce other States' to do the same.
The CIA have not responded to a request for comment from MailOnline.
Read more: |
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ald-Reagan.html |
|
|
| Lews |
I don't even... You are so ing stupid, I shouldn't even waste my time responding.
The U.S. does not want to attack Syria. It's that simple. |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
that's right . the US' hand is being forced by the UN security council resolution compelling a strike. oh wait, there is none. my bad.
right, right. i remember, the US is part of a broad coalition urging the strikes. oh wait again. there is no broad coalition urging action. my bad. |
|
|
| Lagrangian |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
I don't even... You are so ing stupid, I shouldn't even waste my time responding.
The U.S. does not want to attack Syria. It's that simple. |
| quote: | As we showed mere days ago, it appears the truth of who the real puppet-master in the Middle-East is becoming plainer to see. The incredibly frank discussion between Saudi's spy-chief Prince Bandar and Russia's Putin exposed a much deeper plot is afoot and the following details from the actual people on the ground in the chemically-attacked region of Syria suggest Obama is playing right into the Saudi's plan. While Obama is 'certain' that the chemical attacks took place on al-Assad's orders, as MPN reports, "from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack."
The narrative for public consumption is well-known and quite clear - it was all as-Assad's fault. And yet...
Via MPN,
... from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.
“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.
Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”
Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.
Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.
“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”
“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.
A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.
“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said.
Doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers to be careful about asking questions regarding who, exactly, was responsible for the deadly assault.
The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders added that health workers aiding 3,600 patients also reported experiencing similar symptoms, including frothing at the mouth, respiratory distress, convulsions and blurry vision. The group has not been able to independently verify the information.
More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government. |
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...hemical-attacks
 |
|
|
| FuzzQi |
| No. It's like America watched Team America and were actually like "wow that is such a good idea!" |
|
|
| LoveHate |
| the current Assad seems like a smart humanitarian individual, plus his wife is hot. :) |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
that's right . the US' hand is being forced by the UN security council resolution compelling a strike. oh wait, there is none. my bad.
right, right. i remember, the US is part of a broad coalition urging the strikes. oh wait again. there is no broad coalition urging action. my bad. |
You do realize that when we draw a red line for something, it basically means that you can do anything up unto that point, right? When we set the red line on chemical weapons, that meant Assad could do literally anything against his civilians except use chemical weapons. We gave him a ton of lee way. WE DO NOT WANT TO BE INVOLVED. We have no interests at stake here.
However, we do have an interest in keeping up the international norm against the use of chemical weapons. Hence, we are going to wrap Assad's knuckles a little bit, and then continue watching and doing nothing. We don't want to be involved. Syria is a cluster and Obama and our military and intelligence community knows that. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Thermate |
:stongue: what, they're going to throw a bunch of grenades on the target? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
this has nothing to do with immorality of using chemical weapons. it has to do with other geo-political (see Israel) bull. the US actually helped a country deploy chemical weapons against another. (see below). the US just is looking for an excuse to retaliate against a friend of an enemy of israel. |
your grasp of politics is non-existent. |
|
|
|
|
