Syria has used chemical weapons. Now what?
 

Assad has used chemical weapons on his own citizens. Obama as stated that this would be a "red line". What the hell does that truly mean? What should be our response?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...syria/2420763/

Not a d@mm thing IMHO!


We will keep the devil we know in power as long as possible.


Barney

"Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said that the president has decided to step up "military support" to the main opposition group, the Supreme Military Council, to bolster its effectiveness." from your link, Mike.

"The United States has concluded that Syrian government forces used chemical weapons to kill at least 100 people, crossing a “red line” and prompting President Obama to provide direct military support to the rebels for the first time, the White House said Thursday."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...y.html?hpid=z1

What would you prefer, Mike?

Yep, they used gas to kill over 100 people and conventional weapons to kill 90,000 with conventional weapons. I fail to see what's game-changing about the use of gas there, other than Obama's unfortunate comment.

Assad works for the Rooskies, let them handle it. While we're at it, we should ask them if they want Afghanistan back.

I'll bet they're still laughing their asses off about us going back there after we were pretty much out.

I hate to say it, but whenever it comes to military intervention, we should do what America does best...bomb the shit out of the bastards and get home in time for supper.

Or better yet, let the Rooskies and the Chicoms deal with the crazy pricks. Then sit back on our asses and make money both ways.

Just joking...that's the international bankers gig. After all, no nation could afford an extended war, even us, without their financing.

And considering that our currency is based on debt, if we didn't borrow money to finance wars and all other kinds of ignorant bullshit, we'd all be broke...wouldn't we?

Chas

Obama has painted himself in a corner. Goaded by interventionists and adventurers like McCaine he used the dumb words "red line".

Now he begins to look like the SON OF BUSH.

Lets take a hard look at the area.
The war in Syria started out as opposition to Assad but has now morphed into a sectarian conflict pitting Shia and non moslems against the Sunnis.
The most effective and prominent group in the opposition is Jabhat-al-Nusra which is now labeled a terrorist group by our own government.

So what are we going to do? Deliver effective armament to the Syrian opposition? :D

Well, it looks like the Obama team has elected the first option...

...which has prompted a response from the Ruskies:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

Good, F--k Putin.
As long as we stay in the background.


Carl

I think he dumped the red line on congress.

Congress demanded consultation in this without thinking of how it will make the neo isolationists on both sides of the aisle look to their constituents. (or maybe they did?;)) It will be very interesting to see which way the Libertarian/Tea Pahtay jumps on this one.:rolleyes:


The red line was written in to the first Geneva Convention via the outlawing the use of chemical weapons. I support the CINC's decision in this. We can't let this go by with our heads in the sand.