welcome to iraq invasion 2003, where coalition troops were getting shot at by libyans, syrians etc etc. in fact, its pretty much the same rebels the west is now supporting.
no one is talking about enforcing a no-fly zone. we're talking cruise missile strikes on chemical weapons deposits/manufacturing facilities. obama has specifically stated that the purpose of the strikes will not be to create any "tactical difference" or force a regime change, so it's unlikely any airstrips not used for chemical weapons delivery will be bombed (i.e. russian and iranian supply lines will be safe). the US has 6 guided missile destroyers and a carrier battle group at the ready. there will be thousands of tomahawks ready to fly and there isn't shit Assad can do about it.
use of chemical weapons is a gross violation of both international law and an almost universal norm against the use of WMDs. a civil war isn't.
yeah im pretty sure assad's government is dumb enough to use chem weapons while under intense scope from the international community right? what chemical weapons sights, there's no evidence of them unless youre gonna trust the same dude who gave the intel about WMD's in iraq.
There is no evidence of chemical weapons being used oh boy
It's just such huge speculation on who used it now. Remember the last time the US invaded a country because "omg chemical weapons." didn't turn out too well now did it. I highly doubt all that airpower being allocated right next to syria is just to destroy chemical weapon sites... like the US know exactly where they are. lolsmith i never said there's no evidence of chemical weapons being used, im saying there's no evidence of chemical weapon sites/caches/plants/whatever in syria.
depends who you believe. the results of the UN investigation will be telling, but US sources seem certain it was Assad.
still not talking about an invasion
this is just conjecture. obama's has stated his aim as limited punishment for the use of chemical weapons, not to alter the balance between Assad and the opposition.
now you're just talking out of your ass. we know the location of chemical weapons research, storage and manufacturing facilities Latakia, Al Safirah, Masyaf, Hama, Homs, Al Furqlus, Qattinah, Khan Abu, Quddssaya.
yeah just when you write "chemical weapons sights" it kind of means something separate to that
chemical weapons sites* damn my grammar mistakes.
Yeah only US sources. Only the US has knowledge about this and no outside sources at all, not the Saudis, not the Israelis, Turks, Qataris or anyone else have evidence. Apparently the French have evidence now too. Not going to alter the balance between assad and rebels my ass, air strikes will alter a shitload of things. Yeah and its not like the arab states have been trying to use this opportunity to get rid of Assad right? I stand corrected Syria does have a huge stockpile of chemical weapons. I still highly doubt that the military would use it now instead of using it way earlier when it had a stronger footing to put down the rebellion. You realize the rebels could have access to the material right?
I along with many other people can't wait for your reaction after Saturday.
But the Coalition will still be in for atleast 2terms.
the US is being remarkably transparent with the evidence it has that Assad used chemical weapons, and its intentions in regards to limited kinetic strikes in Syria. this briefing addresses quite a few of your concerns. i quote,
if they're actually planning on significantly altering the strategic balance between Assad and the opposition, why public commit to an intervention aimed at punishing Assad for the use of chemical weapons and degrading Syria's chemical weapons capabilities? when the US wants regime change it either does it covertly, or overtly justifies it by propagating a discourse of existential threat or moral imperative (e.g. Iraq), especially through the mainstream media. this is simply not the case in Syria - or they're playing the long game, trying to isolate Assad and draw Hezbollah and Iran into a prolonged conflict, draining their resources, and also to impose a stalemate with an aim to ensuring that the future government is neither Ba'athist nor sunni extremist.
Assad is still human, and knows that the use of chemical weapons is a breach of customary international law, and of the Geneva Protocol that Syria is a party to. the use of chemical weapons is a desperate move by Assad. regime forces had failed to clear out a number of damascus neighbourhoods and had exhausted the utility of their conventional weapon systems. the use of chemical weapons is a form of escalating the scale of brutality, and is a good move, except for the fact that these days (if you're not a superpower) the international community won't let you get away with it.
the evidence and high-confidence assessment is that the Assad regime secured its chemical weapon stockpiles before the opposition could seize any, but it's certainly a possibility.
How can someone be this dumb
