PDA

View Full Version : US on stand-by to engage Syria



efq
21-08-2012, 07:08 AM
Obama warns Syria chemical weapons use may spark US action

Obama: "It doesn't just include Syria. It would concern allies in the region, including Israel, and it would concern us."

US President Barack Obama has said the use of chemical weapons by Syria would be a "red line" that would change his thinking on intervention in the crisis.

He said he had "at this point not ordered military engagement".

But he added: "There would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons."

Earlier the new UN special envoy to Syria faced criticism for refusing to say whether President Assad must quit.
President Obama, speaking to reporters at a White House briefing, said the deployment or use of biological weapons would widen the conflict in the region.

He said: "It doesn't just include Syria. It would concern allies in the region, including Israel, and it would concern us."
He warned President Bashar al-Assad and "other players on the ground" about the use or movement of such weapons.

He said: "A red line for us is [if] we see a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around, or being utilised. That would change my calculus."

Syria holds the world's fourth-largest stockpile of chemical weapons. Last month a Syrian foreign ministry spokesman said the weapons would never be deployed inside Syria.
However, the BBC's Kim Ghattas in Washington says the US has seen unconfirmed reports recently that the Syrian authorities have been moving the country's chemical arms stockpile.

Fighting continued in several Syrian cities on Monday, including Damascus, Deraa and Aleppo.
A Japanese journalist, Mika Yamamoto, was killed by gunfire in Aleppo, the country's foreign ministry has confirmed.
Ms Yamamoto, 45, was a veteran war reporter, working for Japan Press.
The UN says more than 18,000 people have been killed in the conflict, 170,000 have fled Syria and 2.5 million need aid within the country.

Mission ends
Earlier on Monday, the UN's new envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi told the BBC that he was "not in a position to say yet" whether President Assad should go, but was "committed to finding a solution".

Mr Brahimi, a former Algerian foreign minister, last week succeeded Kofi Annan who resigned after both sides largely ignored his peace plan.

On Sunday, UN observers ended their mission to verify its implementation.
Their departure came after the UN Security Council agreed to allow their mandate to expire at midnight, and instead set up a new civilian office in Damascus to pursue political contacts that might lead to peace.
Since being confirmed as the new UN and Arab League envoy to Syria, Mr Brahimi has acknowledged that he has no concrete ideas of how to end the conflict, which he believes has been a civil war for some time.

On Monday, he told the BBC that he was not ready to say whether President Assad should step down despite widespread international condemnation of his government's crackdown on dissent since protests erupted in March 2011.
"I am not in a position to say yet, because I was appointed a couple of days ago. I am going to New York for the first time to see the people who I am going to work for, and I am going to Cairo see the Arab League," he explained.

After announcing his resignation, Mr Brahimi's predecessor, Kofi Annan, said: "It is clear that President Bashar al-Assad must leave office."

The main opposition coalition, the Syrian National Council (SNC), said Mr Brahimi's stance showed "disregard for the blood of the Syrian people and their right of self-determination" and demanded he apologise.
Mr Brahimi stressed that he was "committed to finding a solution full stop".

"I am a mediator. I haven't joined any Syrian party. I am a mediator and a mediator has to speak to anybody and everybody without influence or interest," he added.
"Then I'll make up my mind about what to say and what to do."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19319446

GommeInc
21-08-2012, 11:10 AM
Well of course the US should intervene. Any country that feels it necessary to deploy chemical weapons against their enemies deserves everything that gets thrown at them. A country like the US is a perfect example of a company that doesn't use chemicals in their warfare, look at Vietnam! That Agent Orange just spilled onto their trees and woodland from an angry Orange God who felt that the trees outlived their purpose and the unborn children needed new shaped heads and limbs, as well as health issues.

The US should not be allowed to say anything when it comes to chemical warfare. They should sit at the back and shut up for a change, by aiming to live the opposite of the loud, ignorant stereotype so wonderfully attributed to them.

Niall!
21-08-2012, 12:31 PM
God dammit, stop being international police. Leave syria to itself.

Johnathan
21-08-2012, 02:17 PM
God dammit, stop being international police. Leave syria to itself.

I completely agree.

efq
21-08-2012, 05:24 PM
I completely agree.
Until they turn on us lmao.

Johnathan
21-08-2012, 05:32 PM
Until they turn on us lmao.

I think that you might have a point... LOL

santa-my-nana
21-08-2012, 05:43 PM
I agree, each country to its self, leave them be, You may have been called the "most powerfull country in the world" but you have not always been and wont retain that power

efq
21-08-2012, 07:44 PM
I agree, each country to its self, leave them be, You may have been called the "most powerfull country in the world" but you have not always been and wont retain that power
Some countries are very secretive about what they do. If in the wrong hands, they could easily ruin the world with a nuke if they had one.

The big boys need to keep an eye on everyone to make sure people aren't trying to pull a fast one. When you have countries like Syria and Israel etc that are trying to hide things from us, and it's taking undercover media to find it out, shows they are hiding it for a reason, whether its a terrorist reason or just for personal gain, all sorts of chemical weapons should be monitored.

All these countries have these nukes, but they are mainly for "display". Look at us with our big weapons sort of thing.
If they drop one though, it could plunge them into a nuclear winter as well, given that sort of weapon was used.

It's confused :(

santa-my-nana
21-08-2012, 08:14 PM
I honestly dont think they would be so secretive if "the big boys" didnt police them so much, we have worldwide rules dont we and if we, and if they just left them to stuff maybe they might not try these attacks, and if they did the rules would come into place and then they could get "the big boys" on them. We just bring these attacks on ourselves really, i think in there own way there trying to say, Look leave us be, were not harming you, your not harming us. just like the popular and uncool kids at school, the big countries are just ganging up on the little countries, so together the little countries are forming allies between them selves so they make something big i think thats really a reason

-:Undertaker:-
22-08-2012, 04:12 AM
Last time I checked Syria was an independent sovereign state, not a US colony? what goes on in Syria is absolutely none of our business not to mention that we (the west) cannot afford to make it our business. I'd also add (because I know we have Obama supporters on here who have Obama avatars, signatures and quotes) that I look forward to them condemning this conflict as they would have condemned the ones George W Bush started, because Obama is just as much a warmonger as Bush was with the attack on Libya and now potentially Syria. Oh, and Romney is also a warmonger before anyone thinks i'm coming from that angle.

But then again, it's cool to support Obama because he's very good at making a words on a teleprompter sound inspiring - so I doubt i'll get much support from that direction.


Until they turn on us lmao.

If we believe in preventative war (a hypocritical concept in itself) then the British should be marching into Argentina, Iran into Saudi Arabia, India into China, Pakistan into India, US into China and so on.

Sound ridiculous and pointless? exactly.

-:Undertaker:-
22-08-2012, 05:12 AM
I just realised as well, why is the title of the article/thread 'US on stand-by to engage Syria'

If Iran were to attack Israel (Iran/Persia hasn't attacked another country in 200 odd years) would western media call it 'Iran engages Israel with tactical strikes'?

..just something to think about.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!