Obama hints military action if hard evidence for chemical weapons use in Syria found - Polidicks

[QUOTE]WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama signaled Tuesday he would consider U.S. military action against Syria if “hard, effective evidence” is found to bolster intelligence that chemical weapons have been used in the 2-year-old civil war. Among the potential options being readied for him: weapons and ammunition for the Syrian rebels. Despite such planning, Obama appealed for patience during a White House news conference, saying he needed more conclusive evidence about how and when chemical weapons detected by U.S. intelligence agencies were used and who deployed them. If those questions can be answered, Obama said he would consider actions the Pentagon and intelligence community have prepared for him in the event Syria has crossed his chemical weapons “red line.”[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hagel-us-still-assessing-reports-that-syrian-forces-used-chemical-weapons-against-rebels/2013/04/29/fac26e7c-b130-11e2-9fb1-62de9581c946_story.html"]Washington Post[/URL]

Just before people get anxious, military action doesn't necessarily mean a 10 year long ground war

[QUOTE=PollytheParrot;40482932]Just before people get anxious, military action doesn't necessarily mean a 10 year long ground war[/QUOTE] Yeah, we have predator drones instead. So two years tops.

[QUOTE=blacksam;40483122]Yeah, we have predator drones instead. So two years tops.[/QUOTE] What about Libya? That was military action that took a matter of weeks.

[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40483191]What about Libya? That was military action that took a matter of weeks.[/QUOTE] I don't think the situation is the same. The world and Syria's population are divided over this issue.

[QUOTE=PollytheParrot;40482932]Just before people get anxious, military action doesn't necessarily mean a 10 year long ground war[/QUOTE] It's still not a good idea

[QUOTE=isreal?;40484035]I don't think the situation is the same. The world and Syria's population are divided over this issue.[/QUOTE] And the situation was different in Libya?

A no fly zone would help a lot seeing as Syria or the rebels took a shot at a fully loaded Russian airliner a couple days ago.

Why does America have to be the mediator for everyone and everything. Can't we leave this shit to some other country? It's bullshit how our leaders muck around in everything.

[QUOTE=Deadman123;40484080]Why does America have to be the mediator for everyone and everything. Can't we leave this shit to some other country? It's bullshit how our leaders muck around in everything.[/QUOTE] It's not just the U.S. who has interests in the middle east

[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40484070]And the situation was different in Libya?[/QUOTE] Yes, if you had a basic understanding of the demography in Libya compared to Syria, as well as the geography and the political stances of countries around the world you would understand. The UNSC agreed to a no fly zone in Libya, it had the backing of the world powers. In Syria, the world is much more divided and the region is also divided by religious beliefs. What do you think is going to happen if the US decides to go and bomb Syria? What do you think the reaction of the other world powers will be, specifically China and Russia and how do you think it could provoke possible hard or soft power responses? You don't give these issues much forethought.

[QUOTE=The Rifleman;40484085]It's not just the U.S. who has interests in the middle east[/QUOTE] But [i]most[/i] of the time, it seems to me that we're the major player when it could be left to another major world power, or NATO perhaps.

[QUOTE=isreal?;40484148]Yes, if you had a basic understanding of the demography in Libya compared to Syria, as well as the geography and the political stances of countries around the world you would understand. The UNSC agreed to a no fly zone in Libya, it had the backing of the world powers. In Syria, the world is much more divided and the region is also divided by religious beliefs. What do you think is going to happen if the US decides to go and bomb Syria? What do you think the reaction of the other world powers will be, specifically China and Russia and how do you think it would harm ties? You don't give these issues much forethought do you?[/QUOTE] Of course the situation isn't the same. That's not what I meant. You said "The world and Syria's population are divided over this issue." The world and Libya's population was nothing but divided over the issue.

The situation in Syria is critical when compared to Lybia. Neither rebels or Assads are good, sad to say, but at least with Assad at the head we know who we're dealing with. We don't need another islamist state that will fuck over women's right, not feed properly their people and have Sharia law.

[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40484214]Of course the situation isn't the same. That's not what I meant. You said "The world and Syria's population are divided over this issue." The world and Libya's population was nothing but divided over the issue.[/QUOTE] No, there was no near religious division between the Libyan population and I don't think Gaddafi had much support from the population in general. People did not worry about ethnic or religious reprisals to the same extend as in Syria. Assad still has a lot support. The world powers agreed to limited military intervention in Libya, however in Syria the situation is completely different and he has the support of powerful players in the region and the world. He is actively being propped up politically, financially and militarily by those supporting powers.

[QUOTE=isreal?;40484285]No, there was no near religious division between the Libyan population and I don't think Gaddafi had much support from the population in general. People did not worry about ethnic or religious reprisals to the same extend as in Syria. Assad still has a lot support. The world powers agreed to limited military intervention in Libya, however in Syria the situation is completely different and he has the support of powerful players in the region and the world. He is actively being propped up politically, financially and militarily by those supporting powers.[/QUOTE] Fair enough

[QUOTE=Deadman123;40484080]Why does America have to be the mediator for everyone and everything. Can't we leave this shit to some other country? It's bullshit how our leaders muck around in everything.[/QUOTE] No one else steps up to do it. If we stay out and lets say thousands of civilians are brutally killed by some sort of bomb in Syria then America will get blamed for not intervening. It's really lose lose. That's why it's best to just stick back and watch from a distance just in case if anything goes out of hand.

[QUOTE=Deadman123;40484162]But [i]most[/i] of the time, it seems to me that we're the major player when it could be left to another major world power, or NATO perhaps.[/QUOTE] dude, we fund 75% of NATO...

Send in the special forces, have them take or destroy the weapons. I don't trust Assad with them, and I trust the rebels even less.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;40484978]Send in the special forces, have them take or destroy the weapons. I don't trust Assad with them, and I trust the rebels even less.[/QUOTE] I don't think the special forces are going to penetrate into some underground bunker storing the nations WMD's.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;40484978]Send in the special forces, have them take or destroy the weapons. I don't trust Assad with them, and I trust the rebels even less.[/QUOTE] I played call of duty too.

[QUOTE=Deadman123;40484080]Why does America have to be the mediator for everyone and everything. Can't we leave this shit to some other country? It's bullshit how our leaders muck around in everything.[/QUOTE] Maybe just maybe it has something to do with the immense military power that they hold?? You know, the power which in comparison to most of the world is overwhelming. [editline]1st May 2013[/editline] Also my personal opinion; Syria needs peacekeepers, not either side backed. Honestly they need people to stand in the middle to try and calm things down.

[QUOTE=Jsm;40485797]Maybe just maybe it has something to do with the immense military power that they hold?? You know, the power which in comparison to most of the world is overwhelming. [editline]1st May 2013[/editline] Also my personal opinion; Syria needs peacekeepers, not either side backed. Honestly they need people to stand in the middle to try and calm things down.[/QUOTE] that might have been possible earlier in the conflict, but it is probably impossible now.

No, no, no, a thousand times NO. The US needs to stop making every single problem in the Middle East our problem. The reason that entire region of the world hates us is because the US jumps at any and all excuses to bomb Muslim nations, and invents excuses when they can't find a good enough one. We've been at war in the Middle East for half of my lifetime, we need to fucking stop and let them solve their own goddamn problems. The US is bleeding to death economically to keep feeding our military to keep dropping bombs over there, and we get absolutely nothing of value for it.

[QUOTE=Jsm;40485797]Maybe just maybe it has something to do with the immense military power that they hold?? You know, the power which in comparison to most of the world is overwhelming. [/QUOTE] It's a good thing we will have a more than 2 economic super powers in around 2030, most notably India and China. Imagine a world where China and India have surpassed the United States in power, with Brazil and Russia trailing. Exciting years ahead.

I find it curious, now that the US is beating the war drum, nobody brings up the emails from the Malaysian hacker incident (Britam Defence hack) a few months ago? The ones that implicated the United States was attempting to hire a private military company to smuggle a chemical weapon into the region and fire it into Syria via an artillery shell, and blame Assad forces, as a means for intervention? I'm wondering if people have just forgot, or if the whole thing is just too shady or improbable to mention. I think intervention in Syria will be very different from NATO intervention in Libya, due to the wide accessibility of MANPAADs by the various non-assad forces, rumored Iranian Quds Forces assisting Assad and ofcourse the Russian forces on the ground already and in the region, who just a couple months ago had to secure chemical weapons from a storage facility under a large assault from non-assad forces to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. Saudi Arabia has also been providing heavy weapons to the rebel forces, who just might not be huge fans of NATO forces intervening in their war for Syria.

[QUOTE=Looter;40486851]I find it curious, now that the US is beating the war drum, nobody brings up the emails from the Malaysian hacker incident (Britam Defence hack) a few months ago? The ones that implicated the United States was attempting to hire a private military company to smuggle a chemical weapon into the region and fire it into Syria via an artillery shell, and blame Assad forces, as a means for intervention? I'm wondering if people have just forgot, or if the whole thing is just too shady or improbable to mention. I think intervention in Syria will be very different from NATO intervention in Libya, due to the wide accessibility of MANPAADs by the various non-assad forces, rumored Iranian Quds Forces assisting Assad and ofcourse the Russian forces on the ground already and in the region, who just a couple months ago had to secure chemical weapons from a storage facility under a large assault from non-assad forces to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. Saudi Arabia has also been providing heavy weapons to the rebel forces, who just might not be huge fans of NATO forces intervening in their war for Syria.[/QUOTE] Probably too shady. When people get so fervent about hating on the US government they forget that bullshit can be made up by people besides the US gov too. And that story sounds like bullshit. P.S the US isnt "beating the war drum". People read "military action" and lose their fucking minds. Military action doesn't necessarily mean a full scale invasion, it could be as limited as the support they gave in Libya. The US economy isn't really in a position to fund another ground war, even if there was a dedicated time frame.

[QUOTE=Deadman123;40484080]Why does America have to be the mediator for everyone and everything. Can't we leave this shit to some other country? It's bullshit how our leaders muck around in everything.[/QUOTE] Think of it this way, that overblown military budget is going to get put to use for once.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;40485120]I played call of duty too.[/QUOTE] I'm sure the Syrian Army will pose considerable resistance to our forces, just like the Iraqi Army did. Except they didn't. [QUOTE=isreal?;40485085]I don't think the special forces are going to penetrate into some underground bunker storing the nations WMD's.[/QUOTE] Well it's that or do nothing. I'm fine with nothing as long as they keep killing each other and not us.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;40487653]I'm sure the Syrian Army will pose considerable resistance to our forces, just like the Iraqi Army did. [/QUOTE] Wasn't why I made that joke. It's not a video game, the army can't just drop a handful of men into the country with the objective of find the mythical bunker complex that contains the entire countries WMDs and chemical weapons.