Kerry says Syria attack by Assad & killed 1, 429 - Polidicks

[quote]US Secretary of State John Kerry has said Syrian government forces killed 1,429 people in a chemical weapons attack in Damascus last week. Mr Kerry said the dead included 426 children, and described the attack as an "inconceivable horror". He said Assad regime forces had prepared for the attack three days earlier. "We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and landed only in opposition-held areas," he said. "All of these things we know, the American intelligence community has high confidence." He said the government would consult Congress and the American people over the next step.[/quote] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23906913[/url]

[quote]He said the government would consult Congress and [B]the American people[/B] over the next step.[/quote] My fucking ass.

too bad the Russian and Chinese people are cockblocking this, it seems like they are the people we need to be talking to, to hell with pooty Putin and the commies in China, they are letting hundreds probably thousands die from one of the most horrible weapons ever developed.

aka tv speech

is the evidence available for us to read or are we just taking Kerrys word for it...

[QUOTE=Harry3;42021889]is the evidence available for us to read or are we just taking Kerrys word for it...[/QUOTE]It's likely to be presented to the UN, so i'd imagine we can get a hold of it from there.

Still waiting for at least a few shreds of evidence, Kerry.

[QUOTE=Harry3;42021889]is the evidence available for us to read or are we just taking Kerrys word for it...[/QUOTE] There's this, but obviously they aren't going to go into details. [URL]http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/USGassessmentonSyria08302013.pdf[/URL] And for the record, I think anyone who takes a lack of actual evidence being shown as a sign there is no evidence is a moron. They are not going to release actual intelligence, especially when its on going. People should be [I]slightly[/I] more trusting of a report from an intelligence agency summarising their intel.

[QUOTE=AmericanInfantry;42021848]My fucking ass.[/QUOTE] Good thing, too. Matters such as policy (foreign or domestic) and military should never be allowed for public input. If that we're the case, then Bush could have simply let the people vote on whether we should invade Iraq and he would have received an overwhelming confirmation.

I think its wise to be wary when the majority of our intelligence is coming from Israel.

[QUOTE=Harry3;42021958]I think its wise to be wary when the majority of our intelligence is coming from Israel.[/QUOTE] Where is this?

Am I wrong in remembering the US and some of it's allies are going to invade Syria soon? Or are at least opting to?

Well that's rich coming from the US. *cough* Agent Orange *cough*

No one is invading anyone were just going to rough up Assads forces with some cruise missiles to show what happens when you use chemical weapons.

Just fuck off America.

Funny how it's only the American intelligence community that has confidence in this.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;42022230]Funny how it's only the American intelligence community that has confidence in this.[/QUOTE] French and British as well.

They're being extremely vague on what a military response to this would be, and its irritating.

[QUOTE=Saxon;42022281]They're being extremely vague on what a military response to this would be, and its irritating.[/QUOTE] Maybe because the possible military response is classified?

[QUOTE=l33tkill;42022393]Maybe because the possible military response is classified?[/QUOTE] We don't need to know there exact response will be, the important question is if troops on the ground will be required? They don't seem to care parking ships off Syria when they have powerful anti-ship missiles.

[QUOTE=Saxon;42022420]We don't need to know there exact response will be, the important question is if troops on the ground will be required? They don't seem to care parking ships off Syria when they have powerful anti-ship missiles.[/QUOTE]That'd probably be political suicide, sending troops there. The US government has vehemently denied any possibility of troops on the ground, too, and tbh I don't think they'd even want to if they could. They'd probably go for another Libya-style intervention i.e. air power and cruise missiles by the fucktonne.

For those of you saying we shouldn't get involved, what is the point of the Geneva Protocol if it means nothing and is not enforced? Unfortunately we have a [I]responsibility[/I] to get involved. By "we" I mean every nation that believes international agreements need to be upheld. What kind of message are we setting if we choose to do nothing?

[QUOTE=JgcxCub;42022155]Well that's rich coming from the US. *cough* Agent Orange *cough*[/QUOTE] Relevant: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCjbTALVN6Q[/media]

[QUOTE=OvB;42022523]For those of you saying we shouldn't get involved, what is the point of the Geneva Protocol if it means nothing and is not enforced? Unfortunately we have a [I]responsibility[/I] to get involved. By "we" I mean every nation that believes international agreements need to be upheld. What kind of message are we setting if we choose to do nothing?[/QUOTE] I agree that International law should be enforced, the real problem is how. What happens if this becomes another turning point and the extremists take over and get the chemical weapons instead?

[QUOTE=Saxon;42022585]I agree that International law should be enforced, the real problem is how. What happens if this becomes another turning point and the extremists take over and get the chemical weapons instead?[/QUOTE] There is no good outcome to this, ignoring it would be worse than doing something. We just need to carry out what is necessary and see what comes next.

911 Buff is reporting that the Turks dont think a limited strike is satisfying, they want a military campaign.

[QUOTE=JgcxCub;42022155]Well that's rich coming from the US. *cough* Agent Orange *cough*[/QUOTE] As I said in another thread, that was 50 fucking years ago. People and policies change. (Not to mention it was never used as a direct weapon) [editline]30th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Paul McCartney;42022230]Funny how it's only the American intelligence community that has confidence in this.[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/235094/Jp_115_JD_PM_Syria_Reported_Chemical_Weapon_Use_with_annex.pdf[/url] Okay.

[QUOTE=Saxon;42022585]I agree that International law should be enforced, the real problem is how. What happens if this becomes another turning point and the extremists take over and get the chemical weapons instead?[/QUOTE] I feel like we should've had this all sorted out as an international community two years ago when this whole thing started. We knew Assad had massive chemical weapons facilities, we assumed there could come a time and a place where he might be stupid enough to use them. We've been saying for months that if Assad crosses the line that we'll do something, and now he finally (or someone did) cross that line and now here we are with our thumb up our bum scrambling to come up with some kind of plan. Then it doesn't help that we got a good portion of the international community saying [I]"Nahh we'll let the Americans deal with this."[/I] If we had done this right, there would be a missile cruiser from every country capable of sending one waiting for the the call, and fleets of humanitarian ships behind them waiting for the smoke to clear.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;42022660]911 Buff is reporting that the Turks dont think a limited strike is satisfying, they want a military campaign.[/QUOTE] 911BUFF reported that the British government was defeated in parliment last night 15 minutes before they voted on the motion. Please do not take anything they say seriously. [editline]30th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Saxon;42022420]We don't need to know there exact response will be, the important question is if troops on the ground will be required? They don't seem to care parking ships off Syria when they have powerful anti-ship missiles.[/QUOTE] Sounds like they ruled out troops on the ground, based purely on what he said.

[QUOTE=Jsm;42022692]911BUFF reported that the British government was defeated in parliment last night 15 minutes before they voted on the motion. Please do not take anything they say seriously. [editline]30th August 2013[/editline] Sounds like they ruled out troops on the ground, based purely on what he said.[/QUOTE] There goes my credibility, thanks.