Latest Breaking News

Omaha Steve

(99,727 posts) Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:55 PM Dec 2012

US weighing military options if Syria uses WMD

Source: AP-Excite

By KIMBERLY DOZIER and PAULINE JELINEK

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House and its allies are weighing military options to secure Syria's chemical and biological weapons, after U.S. intelligence reports show the Syrian regime may be readying those weapons and may be desperate enough to use them, U.S. officials said Monday.

President Barack Obama, in a speech at the National Defense University on Monday, pointedly warned Syrian President Bashar Assad not to use the weapons.

"Today I want to make it absolutely clear to Assad and those under his command: The world is watching," Obama said. "The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable."

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in Prague for meetings with Czech officials, said she wouldn't outline any specifics.

Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20121203/DA2UJGT01.html

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney gestures during his daily news briefing at the White House in Washington, Monday, Dec., 3, 2012. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

US weighing military options if Syria uses WMD (Original Post) Omaha Steve Dec 2012 OP

Where are our national security experts SCVDem Dec 2012 #1

Fuck that shit. AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #2

"Where the hell is the UN?" Ask Russia and China. One risk Assad runs by using chemical weapons pampango Dec 2012 #3

The UN is as useless as the League of Nations was Lurks Often Dec 2012 #4

Epic flashback. WilliamPitt Dec 2012 #5

Syria Threatens Chemical Attack on Foreign Force hack89 Dec 2012 #6

Is there a UN resolution authorizing use of force in this particular circumstance? Comrade Grumpy Dec 2012 #7

SCVDem

(5,103 posts)

1. Where are our national security experts

Reply to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:10 PM

Dec 2012

McCain and Lindsey along with their sidekick Ayotte?

Mention WMDs for real and they disappear. That's the smartest thing they've done in a while!

SHADDUP!

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)

2. Fuck that shit.

Reply to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:11 AM

Dec 2012

Where the hell is the UN?

No thanks, not interested in getting sucked into another Iraq. Send in an international peacekeeping force under the auspices of the United Nations, or stand back and let it unfold on it's own.

Enough of this shit.

pampango

(24,692 posts)

3. "Where the hell is the UN?" Ask Russia and China. One risk Assad runs by using chemical weapons

Reply to AtheistCrusader (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:05 AM

Dec 2012

would be that these countries might change their minds about protecting him from UN sanctions.

Is the moral thing to do to stand by and watch people get gassed by their government? We (humans) have faced that question before. Some say "never again", others say "politicians have the right to do whatever they have to do to hold on to power; who are we to tell people they are not allowed to kill their own people; it's 'them' not 'us' that is being killed".

Two questions should be asked. 1. Is there a moral imperative to intervene to protect civilians in a particular situation? If the answer is "No", end of discussion. 2. If the answer is "Yes", then one must answer whether there is a way to intervene under the circumstances that has a reasonable prospect of success? If the answer is "No", end of discussion.

I would add that the answer to question 1 should not always and reflexively be "No" nor should it always be "Yes". Also, if the answer to #1 is "Yes" under certain circumstances (Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Milosevic's Yugoslavia, Rwanda, etc.), then answer to #2 should not always and reflexively be "No" nor should it always be "Yes".

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)

4. The UN is as useless as the League of Nations was

Reply to AtheistCrusader (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:42 PM

Dec 2012

and depending on prevailing wind conditions, if persistent nerve agents are used and the quantity used, casualties both in Syria and surrounding countries could run into tens of thousands people in the short term with long term effects resulting in increased cancers and birth defects affecting even more people.

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)

5. Epic flashback.

Reply to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:08 PM

Dec 2012

hack89

(39,171 posts)

6. Syria Threatens Chemical Attack on Foreign Force

Reply to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:11 PM

Dec 2012

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Syrian officials warned Monday that they would deploy chemical weapons against any foreign intervention, a threat that appeared intended to ward off an attack by Western nations while also offering what officials in Washington called the most “direct confirmation” ever that Syria possesses a stockpile of unconventional armaments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/world/middleeast/chemical-weapons-wont-be-used-in-rebellion-syria-says.html?_r=0

Comrade Grumpy

(13,184 posts)

7. Is there a UN resolution authorizing use of force in this particular circumstance?

Reply to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:24 PM

Dec 2012

If so, that's one thing.

The US doesn't need to go all cowboy in the Middle East again. We're not the world's police man.

Reply to this discussion