Selling Syria vis–à–vis Iran / N. Korea

anatta

100% recycled karma
Iran is hoping you look the other way," Secretary of State John Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Our inaction would surely give them a permission slip for them to at least misinterpret our intention, if not to put it to the test. Hezbollah is hoping that isolationism will prevail.
North Korea is hoping that ambivalence carries the day."

"They are all listening for our silence," Kerry said.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel raised the possibility that Assad's chemical weapons stockpile, considered one of the world's largest, could be seized by his allies, including the Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah.

"We cannot afford for Hezbollah or any terrorist groups determined to strike the United States to have incentives to acquire or use these chemical weapons," Hagel told the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Vali Nasr, a former senior official in Obama's State Department, said Syria's spiraling death toll, the rise of fighters in Syria associated with al-Qaida and other extremist groups, and pressure on neighboring nations from a flood of refugees have already threatened U.S. security interests for years.

"For a very long time we reduced Syria to just a humanitarian tragedy that, as bad as it was, was not a sufficient cause for American involvement," said Nasr, now dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. "That meant we ignored all the other ways in which Syria was a national security threat. And for two years we tried to minimize the impact of Syria, and now all of a sudden the administration finds itself in the position of having to give sufficient urgency to Syria to justify action."

Over the past two years, the White House has mightily resisted intervening in Syria's civil war with U.S. military force. A year ago, Obama signaled the one "red line" exception would be the use of chemical weapons.

Hagel cited "a clear, living example of how we are not insulated from the rest of the world, how things can happen to the United States in this country if we are not vigilant, and think through these things, and stay ahead of these things, and take action to prevent these things from occurring."

"Maybe something would not happen in this country for a couple of years," Hagel said. "But the 9/11 anniversary, I think, is a very clear example you can use with your constituents


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/0...ed-unless-there-is-retaliation/#ixzz2e7k7ShVk


is this not total crap?? EVERYTHING is about U.S. nat'l security - even though the ONLY way to stop an Iranian weapons program is thru....

another war
. N. Korea was just thrown in there for the hell of it...add in another boogeyman.
 
This could actually have been an effective argument, if the administration had shown seriousness regarding Iran and No. Korea in the past. Alas, just as for the past two years regarding Syria's slaughter of its own people, they've only now and again ratcheted up their rhetoric from time-to-time, then looked the other way. The 'red line' line, happened during one of those hyperbolic off the cuff remarks.

If this were about 'punishment' for the chemical weapons, we'd be using the UN for sanctions, using language to keep Russia from supplying the weapons. Instead the administration is arguing for bombing the same folks that survived the chemical attacks. Brilliant.
 
what did Reagan IGNORE when he sold Sadam chemical weapons and then did nothing while sadam killed thousands of Kurds and Iranians with them?
 
Iran is hoping you look the other way," Secretary of State John Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Our inaction would surely give them a permission slip for them to at least misinterpret our intention, if not to put it to the test. Hezbollah is hoping that isolationism will prevail.
North Korea is hoping that ambivalence carries the day."

"They are all listening for our silence," Kerry said.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel raised the possibility that Assad's chemical weapons stockpile, considered one of the world's largest, could be seized by his allies, including the Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah.

"We cannot afford for Hezbollah or any terrorist groups determined to strike the United States to have incentives to acquire or use these chemical weapons," Hagel told the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Vali Nasr, a former senior official in Obama's State Department, said Syria's spiraling death toll, the rise of fighters in Syria associated with al-Qaida and other extremist groups, and pressure on neighboring nations from a flood of refugees have already threatened U.S. security interests for years.

"For a very long time we reduced Syria to just a humanitarian tragedy that, as bad as it was, was not a sufficient cause for American involvement," said Nasr, now dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. "That meant we ignored all the other ways in which Syria was a national security threat. And for two years we tried to minimize the impact of Syria, and now all of a sudden the administration finds itself in the position of having to give sufficient urgency to Syria to justify action."

Over the past two years, the White House has mightily resisted intervening in Syria's civil war with U.S. military force. A year ago, Obama signaled the one "red line" exception would be the use of chemical weapons.

Hagel cited "a clear, living example of how we are not insulated from the rest of the world, how things can happen to the United States in this country if we are not vigilant, and think through these things, and stay ahead of these things, and take action to prevent these things from occurring."

"Maybe something would not happen in this country for a couple of years," Hagel said. "But the 9/11 anniversary, I think, is a very clear example you can use with your constituents


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/0...ed-unless-there-is-retaliation/#ixzz2e7k7ShVk


is this not total crap?? EVERYTHING is about U.S. nat'l security - even though the ONLY way to stop an Iranian weapons program is thru....

another war
. N. Korea was just thrown in there for the hell of it...add in another boogeyman.

I hear all this, the question remains, once Assad is out, then who is in? We have no guarantee that if we strike, this will prevent all that he talks about.

What will we strike? I understand there is great danger in hitting the actual stockpiles of chemicals.

Who are we trying to impress, I thought Iran, and the rest of our detractors already thought us weak?
 
N. Korea is improving it's launch capabilities, according to South Korea.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...nuclear-tipped-missiles-south-korea-says.html

But this is stupid that somehow Hezbollah is going to seize Assads chem weapons - granted this is a proxy war, with Russia/Hez/Iran/ the main players on the Shiite side.

Still I cannot see how expanding this war is going to help stop these guys -in fact the concept of the Shiite Crescent, shows that Syria could very well go Shiia state.

Still that doesn't mean it's going to be a "terrorist state", even though we label Iran as such

220px-Schiitischer_Halbmond.jpg

Shiite crescent -2005
 
O-BOMB-YA wants to punish Assad for calling BS on the "Red Line" speech, and he doesn't care how many innocent dead it will take.
 
N. Korea is improving it's launch capabilities, according to South Korea.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...nuclear-tipped-missiles-south-korea-says.html

But this is stupid that somehow Hezbollah is going to seize Assads chem weapons - granted this is a proxy war, with Russia/Hez/Iran/ the main players on the Shiite side.

Still I cannot see how expanding this war is going to help stop these guys -in fact the concept of the Shiite Crescent, shows that tSyria could very well go Shiia state.

Still that doesn't mean it's going to be a "terrorist state", even though we label Iran as such

View attachment 2330

Shiite crescent -2005


how is taking out ASS SADs ability to gas people expanding the war?

it will shrink it
 
I hear all this, the question remains, once Assad is out, then who is in? We have no guarantee that if we strike, this will prevent all that he talks about.

What will we strike? I understand there is great danger in hitting the actual stockpiles of chemicals.

Who are we trying to impress, I thought Iran, and the rest of our detractors already thought us weak?
exactly. "sometimes the devil you know is better then the devil you don't"

I'm very wary that the "AQ affiliates" are JUST 25% of the Sunni jihadists - Kerry is probably lowballing that.

Also they are very determined -with the support of Saudi Arabia/Qatar, etc. -and a detemined (fanatical) force ccan easily seize Syria.

Then we have created a true terrosist state - I would argue we did so already in Libya. So this isn't a remote possibility.

Best to just stalemate Syria, and leave the status quo (Assad)
 
allowing the people to run their own country instead of a dictator who is willing to gas children in their beds will be much better proof of your commitment to democracy huh.


This is a civil war and NOT for us to determine who runs the country.

This is about deterring dictators from using ILLEAGAL for 100 years internationally killing devices
 
You don't get to be moral and allow mass murders to stay in power so you can speculate on how that murderer is too busy killing others to scare you
 
This is NOT just about the chem weapons, the CIA is training up the "rebels".

and now US military advisors are getting into this - we're getting sucked IN!!

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2021764602_syriatrainersxml.html##Static
U.S. may use military to train Syrian rebels
The new discussions center on whether the U.S. military should take over the mission from the CIA so that hundreds or thousands can be trained, rather than just dozens


SYRIA:
Syrian government troops battled al-Qaida-linked rebels for a second day over the regime-held Christian village of Maaloula in western Syria. Rami Abdul-Rahman, the director of the Britain-based Observatory for Human Rights, said the fighters included members of the of al-Qaida affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra group
 
so your plan is what?


allow ass sad to just gas everyone he doesn't like along with thousands of innocents so you don't have to think about it?
 
this is NOT about removing ASS SAD people

So, it is just about spanking him, and what does that achieve? Why does it have to be a military strike? There are other options that don't involve the military.

Why are we going it alone? If this is an international law, why not let the international community decide a punishment
. Why does Obama/Kerry feel we, the US should be the lone enforcers?
 
This is NOT just about the chem weapons, the CIA is training up the "rebels".

and now US military advisors are getting into this - we're getting sucked IN!!

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2021764602_syriatrainersxml.html##Static
U.S. may use military to train Syrian rebels
The new discussions center on whether the U.S. military should take over the mission from the CIA so that hundreds or thousands can be trained, rather than just dozens


SYRIA:
Syrian government troops battled al-Qaida-linked rebels for a second day over the regime-held Christian village of Maaloula in western Syria. Rami Abdul-Rahman, the director of the Britain-based Observatory for Human Rights, said the fighters included members of the of al-Qaida affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra group

First the advisors, then the bombs, then the boots on the ground, boy, does that sound way too familiar!
 
Last edited:
Desh chugs the Kool-Aid.

Here we see two warmongers praying together:

obama-bush-prayer1.jpg


Desh shrieks "Amen"!
 
Back
Top