EPTNot seeing any further info yet
Iraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 55
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please guys, stay on topic. This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
Not seeing any further info yet | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON — American and European intelligence analysts now believe that President Bashar al-Assad’s troops have used chemical weapons against rebel forces in the civil war in Syria, an assessment that will put added pressure on a deeply divided Obama administration to develop a response to a provocation that the president himself has declared a “red line.” According to an internal memorandum circulating inside the government on Thursday, the “intelligence community assesses that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year.” President Obama said in April that the United States had physiological evidence that the nerve gas sarin had been used in Syria, but lacked proof of who used it and under what circumstances. He now believes that the proof is definitive, according to American officials. But a flurry of high-level meetings in Washington this week only underscored the splits within the Obama administration about what actions to take to quell the fighting, which has claimed more than 90,000 people. The meetings were hastily arranged after Mr. Assad’s troops — joined by fighters from the militant group Hezbollah — claimed the strategic city of Qusayr and raised fears in Washington that large parts of the rebellion could be on the verge of collapse. Source | ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
US military plan for arming Syrian rebels also calls for limited no-fly zone - @WSJ Syria has used chemical weapons against rebels, US and European officials conclude - @nytimes Sen. John McCain, on Senate floor, urges no-fly zone over Syria, US military aid - @cspan live video '(Assad) is winning and the slaughter continues,' says @SenJohnMcCain. 'We can change this equation on the battlefield' - @cspan live video White House: Up to 150 people have been killed by chemical weapons in Syria - @AP, @Reuters White House: Will share information on Syrian chemical weapons with international partners, UN; will consult with Congress in coming weeks - @Reuters White House says it will provide more assistance to Syrian opposition on political and military side in coming weeks - @Reuters WH/NSC's Ben Rhodes: US still sees negotiated 'political settlement' in Syria as the 'preferable outcome' - @markknoller | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
That said, if there's going to be armed intervention or weapons smuggling or whatnot, I hope we can turn the majority of it over to Western Europe. Off-topic: been looking through LiveLeak...the Syria videos are a strange combination of horrifying, fascinating, and funny. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
EngrishTeacher
Canada1109 Posts
I honestly thought the American people would be more wise to the tame and care more after Iraq. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
| ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
| ||
|
Thor.Rush
Sweden702 Posts
| ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
Assad turned out to be much stronger and have much more public and foreign support than they had bargained for. It is clear letting the Syrians and Arabs/Iranians fight it out themselves won't lead to a regime loss, so the US government is going to begin hitting Assad in hopes it pushes the two sides to negotiate. I don't think they are gunning for an outright rebel victory unless they are complete idiots. Not sure how anyone expects this to play out when their is no coherent opposition to Assad to even negotiate with. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
On June 14 2013 08:22 EngrishTeacher wrote: Can we PLEASE get a reliable confirmation from a third party regarding the usage of chemical weapons? "The U.S. concluded" just isn't nearly good enough for me anymore. I honestly thought the American people would be more wise to the tame and care more after Iraq. The UK and France have been claiming they have evidence for the use of chemical weapons for a while now. They have also been more vocal about arming the rebels. The US has been pretty tame on the entire Syrian issue, comparatively, in regards to making claims. Not to mention the UN is very involved in all of this. Too bad any action from here will probably just make a total mess messier... | ||
Koorb
France266 Posts
On June 14 2013 07:21 acker wrote: That said, if there's going to be armed intervention or weapons smuggling or whatnot, I hope we can turn the majority of it over to Western Europe. Don't hold your breathe. European nations have neither the will nor the capacity to achieve any kind of armed intervention by themselves at the moment. France and the UK are experienced in such matters, but they lack the firepower to deal with it (the only active aircraft carrier of the union, the Charles de Gaulle, is currently docked for maintenance, and both French and UK's military have been undergoing massive defense cuts during the last decade). Germany is not interested in taking a strong stance on this issue (since it doesn't impact on their external trade, and the German military doesn't have a true force projection capability anyway). Spain and Italy are completely exhausted by austerity (the Spanish navy was even forced to decommission its flagship the Príncipe de Asturias in February). Every other country in the union can hardly do anything outside of their own borders by themselves. Hell, don't forget that, just a few months ago, only 3 European nations out of 27 responded to Mali's plea for help despite overwhelming consensus among them that an intervention was direly needed there, and despite the enemy being not anywhere near as tough as is the Syrian army backed by the Hezbollah right now. As to weapons smuggling, despite all the verbal bravado from Hollande and Cameron (and now Obama), nobody wants to see a massive influx of weaponry ending up in the hands of the Al-Nosra front and of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, especially when many jihadist with European passports are reported to be in their ranks. On June 14 2013 08:22 EngrishTeacher wrote: Can we PLEASE get a reliable confirmation from a third party regarding the usage of chemical weapons? "The U.S. concluded" just isn't nearly good enough for me anymore. I honestly thought the American people would be more wise to the tame and care more after Iraq. For what it's worth, the newspaper Le Monde (largest French newspaper, which strongly opposed the US invasion of Iraq in 2003) has blood samples tainted with sarin that was gathered by their reporters on the Syrian battlefied, although they can't tell for sure if it was the governement or the rebels who used the gas. On June 14 2013 10:29 DannyJ wrote: Too bad any action from here will probably just make a total mess messier... Indeed. Flying to the rescue of what is now mostly a sunni/salafist holy war against alaouites and shias is a recipe for disaster. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
| ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
| ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
| ||
|
deichkind
Sweden347 Posts
On June 14 2013 15:52 -Archangel- wrote: Last I heard Syria is backed by Russia, and I don't think Russia is going to allow outside military involvement. Here is the most important part in this story. Russia. Its really to bad people aint getting this. Uk, France, US, none of them cares about Syria relly. They dont give a shit about the people dying. This is a power play against Russia, like during the cold war. If they cared they wouldve supported rebels from the begining or provide substantial humantarian aid but they didnt do the first and are not doing the second. There is no scenario in which this was had a positive outcome. Its too late. No weapons and more aid to refugees is whats needed and it would prove that they accually care about the people like claim. Too bad thats not going to happen. | ||
|
DrCooper
Germany261 Posts
On June 14 2013 07:46 xDaunt wrote: I hope that whatever "military support" that Obama is planning to give the rebels is minimal. Let the Europeans and Arabs deal with the mess in Syria. That's their backyard. Besides, I highly doubt that whoever replaces Assad is going to be better than Assad as far as US interests are concerned. Sadly, Europe alone does not have the means to do it. All countries in Europe including the UK in total spends less on military than the US. Additonally most countries in Europe won't participate (like Germany). | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
Of course, Rasmussen immediately shouted high and low that NATO thinks Syria is in breach of Int. law (source: his twitter), so France and Britain might become more proactive. P.S. @deichkind: I have no idea how you think this is a power-play against Russia. Russia is poking its nose in the issue because it's worried about the trend of international intervention against rulers that mistreat their people (i.e., Putin is worried someone might take a closer look at his own practices) and it's a good way to make a bit of cash on arms sales, but otherwise the issue has very little to do with Russia. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On June 14 2013 09:14 Romantic wrote: Assad turned out to be much stronger and have much more public and foreign support than they had bargained for. It is clear letting the Syrians and Arabs/Iranians fight it out themselves won't lead to a regime loss, so the US government is going to begin hitting Assad in hopes it pushes the two sides to negotiate. I don't think they are gunning for an outright rebel victory unless they are complete idiots. A U.S. precondition to negotiation is the removal of the Assad regime. Assad has been willing to negotiate for some time now but given that precondition it's unlikely to happen until he has effectively lost. On June 14 2013 11:36 Koorb wrote: As to weapons smuggling, despite all the verbal bravado from Hollande and Cameron (and now Obama), nobody wants to see a massive influx of weaponry ending up in the hands of the Al-Nosra front and of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, especially when many jihadist with European passports are reported to be in their ranks. Nobody except other radical Sunni dictatorships in the region. Like Saudi Arabia and Qatar who have been arming the rebels with western blessings since the start of the conflict. On June 14 2013 17:47 Ghanburighan wrote: P.S. @deichkind: I have no idea how you think this is a power-play against Russia. Russia is poking its nose in the issue because it's worried about the trend of international intervention against rulers that mistreat their people (i.e., Putin is worried someone might take a closer look at his own practices) and it's a good way to make a bit of cash on arms sales, but otherwise the issue has very little to do with Russia. So we're all about freedom, democracy and Syrian self determination and Russia is about selling guns. Really? On June 14 2013 11:36 Koorb wrote: For what it's worth, the newspaper Le Monde (largest French newspaper, which strongly opposed the US invasion of Iraq in 2003) has blood samples tainted with sarin that was gathered by their reporters on the Syrian battlefied, although they can't tell for sure if it was the governement or the rebels who used the gas. I have to say, for me at least, that's kind of important. We can be fairly sure that chemical weapons were used, the science is there from what I've read. Then the science took a trip through U.S. / U.K. spook land and came out as "Definitely the guy we don't like did it". Call me a cynic but I'd really like to see how they came to that conclusion. | ||
| ||
