100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: President vows to "do what's necessary" in Syria and Iran | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Fri 04/26/13 03:14 AM
|
|
There are major events in the world that may or may not require US direct action of sorts. What I am pointing out here is the HUGE gap between what the President says he is going to do, verses what he actually does. In some of these situations, like Iran and North Korea, this "do nothing" policy could come back to bite us hard. With Syria, maybe not so much; but why should he go to the trouble to bluster and make threats? Who is his audience? His Mirror! Little Boy whistling because he is afraid of the Dark! He has stolen a pair of Shoes which he can't fill! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are major events in the world that may or may not require US direct action of sorts. What I am pointing out here is the HUGE gap between what the President says he is going to do, verses what he actually does. In some of these situations, like Iran and North Korea, this "do nothing" policy could come back to bite us hard. With Syria, maybe not so much; but why should he go to the trouble to bluster and make threats? Who is his audience? His Mirror! Little Boy whistling because he is afraid of the Dark! He has stolen a pair of Shoes which he can't fill!  True, but why go to the trouble to get on national TV to say the "line in the sand" garbage and then do nothing when Syria does exactly (uses Sarin gas) what Obama says they cannot do? Why set himself up for failure? Doesn't he then just look like a paper tiger to the whole world?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's just america's manifest destiny,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion,I think it's not only the president's "not doing anything" policies,but also that countries don't just give a damn who the u.s is,north korea for instance.
Seriously,I think u.s as being a unipolar power is already shaky as it is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see the liberal defending the loser has dropped to almost nil.
We The People need to demand the Repubes and Dumbocrats monopoly on elections unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Fri 04/26/13 08:24 AM
|
|
You must 1st believe what the media is spewing as fact before making an "informed" decision.
Guess what..... won't happen..... ever! Benghazi 101..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You must 1st believe what the media is spewing as fact before making an "informed" decision. Guess what..... won't happen..... ever! Benghazi 101..... The "facts" on Benghazi pretty much came out before the election. The media made sure it wasn't an issue. Had a Republican been president at the time, he would have been crucified by the MSM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What does this mean and what do you think will actually happen? Iran just promised to destroy Tel Aviv et.al. This threat is now six months past the last set of deadlines. Syria just used gas on their population. Obama just gave 250 million dollars to the Muslin Brotherhood. He is just a big mouthpiece. He does a lot of talking but when it comes time for action he falls short or make up an excuse. I am guessing he is the same way in the bedroom too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like The [usual suspects] US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and Turkey are supplying Al Qaeda. Strange times. . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The white house just announced that they were not sure Syria has done anything wrong yet.
Latest reports are that over 70,000 civilian are dead. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A "line in the sand" was drawn! Proof of use of chemical weapons by Syria was given today. The White House today was "studying" the situation. Anyone paying attention to the dates here? Obama is all talk. That is the reason Axis countries like Iran, N. Korea, Syria etc are pushing us around and getting away with whatever they want. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The rebels it seems are the ones using the Gas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
President Barack Obama on Tuesday forcefully defended his policy towards Syria.
Obama batted down calls for America to escalate its role in Syria's civil war after U.S. intelligence concluded that President Bashar al-Assad likely used the deadly nerve agent sarin on rebels seeking his ouster. Obama said proof that Assad unleashed chemical weapons would be a "game-changer" but warned that the United States cannot "rush to judgment." "We don’t know how they were used, when they were used, who used them, we don’t have a chain of custody that establishes what exactly happened," Obama told reporters during the hastily announced question-and-answer session in the White House briefing room. "I’ve got to make sure I’ve got the facts." "If we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence” confirming the U.S. intelligence community's preliminary finding that Assad likely used the deadly nerve agent sarin, then America may find it hard to rally support from the international community and even some partners in the region who support Assad's ouster. So "it’s important for us to do this in a prudent way," Obama said. But the president repeated that the use of chemical weapons would be a game-changer "because what that portends is potentially even more devastating attacks on civilians, and it raises the strong possibility that those chemical weapons can fall into the wrong hands,." "By game changer I mean that we would have to rethink the range of options that are available to us," said Obama, who has sent aid to Syria's opposition and neighboring countries like Turkey and Jordan but thus far resisted calls to arm the rebels or attack Assad's forces directly. Obama said there is "a spectrum of options" that are "on the shelf right now" but might be used because using chemical weapons would represent "an escalation, in our view, of the threat." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
President Barack Obama on Tuesday forcefully defended his policy towards Syria. Obama batted down calls for America to escalate its role in Syria's civil war after U.S. intelligence concluded that President Bashar al-Assad likely used the deadly nerve agent sarin on rebels seeking his ouster. Obama said proof that Assad unleashed chemical weapons would be a "game-changer" but warned that the United States cannot "rush to judgment." "We don’t know how they were used, when they were used, who used them, we don’t have a chain of custody that establishes what exactly happened," Obama told reporters during the hastily announced question-and-answer session in the White House briefing room. "I’ve got to make sure I’ve got the facts." "If we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence” confirming the U.S. intelligence community's preliminary finding that Assad likely used the deadly nerve agent sarin, then America may find it hard to rally support from the international community and even some partners in the region who support Assad's ouster. So "it’s important for us to do this in a prudent way," Obama said. But the president repeated that the use of chemical weapons would be a game-changer "because what that portends is potentially even more devastating attacks on civilians, and it raises the strong possibility that those chemical weapons can fall into the wrong hands,." "By game changer I mean that we would have to rethink the range of options that are available to us," said Obama, who has sent aid to Syria's opposition and neighboring countries like Turkey and Jordan but thus far resisted calls to arm the rebels or attack Assad's forces directly. Obama said there is "a spectrum of options" that are "on the shelf right now" but might be used because using chemical weapons would represent "an escalation, in our view, of the threat." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22322180 27 April 2013 Last updated at 11:42 GMT Syria chemical weapons claims: UK and US tread cautiously By Gordon Corera Security correspondent, BBC News The US, UK, Israel and others have been collecting evidence to try to determine whether chemical weapons have been used. ........... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The US-UK and Israel. Now there is a THREESOME.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The US-UK and Israel. Now there is a THREESOME.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The US-UK and Israel. Now there is a THREESOME. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The US-UK and Israel. Now there is a THREESOME. The US, UK, Israel and others have been collecting evidence to try to determine whether chemical weapons have been used. The signs so far are that they have been, but politicians are being cautious of over-selling their level of certainty. This is partly because of the lesson of Iraq when too much was based on too little hard information and all the caveats and cautions surrounding intelligence were lost. And also partly because this time the political context is different. With Iraq a decision had been made to go to war and the intelligence was brought into the public domain to make the case for it. This time political leaders - especially in Washington - seem much more reluctant to intervene and so the emphasis is precisely on the caveats and cautions. Officials are saying there is some evidence of the use of chemical weapons but the US has talked about the need for further confirmation and a UN investigation before being sure. So what would that look like? Normally, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) carries out inspections when there is a suspicion of chemical weapons being used. In that case a carefully defined process is followed. * None of the inspectors can come from a country complaining or being investigated * They will document the process of gathering samples using video and photos to confirm what was collected in each place * These samples are marked so that a chain of custody can be established to ensure nothing can be interfered with before they reach a laboratory certified by the OPCW * A sample is sent to at least two labs * If their assessments coincide then it is considered sufficient proof to go to the OPCW executive council where a state being criticised could challenge the evidence. * If the executive council finds the case still stands then it could be referred to the UN Security Council In the Syrian case, however, a special team has been organised under a UN mandate and leadership rather than the OPCW. The team is 15-strong and headed by a Swedish scientist, Ake Sellstrom. Two of the team members are pre-positioned in Cyprus and the whole team is ready for deployment within 24-48 hours of consent being given by the Syrian authorities. However that is where the problem lies. Search for samples The UN wants consent to carry out an unconditional, unfettered investigation. It wants to be able to investigate all credible allegations - not just the ones the Syrian authorities allow it to see. In the absence of a green light to go into the country, the team has been analysing information and trying to collect what it can from outside the country. Two locations specifically identified are Aleppo and Homs, which are clearly dangerous. Unlike a search for traces of radioactivity that can be done very quickly, looking for traces of chemical and biological agents can take longer, adding to the risk. The aim of the mission, UN officials stress, is to find out whether chemical weapons have been used and not by whom. There is a range of ways of looking for evidence of chemical weapons use. Soil samples can be taken in which you can look for either residue of a chemical agent or the product's characteristic of when an agent degrades. The other main route is through testing bio-medical samples. The value of these depends on the time difference between the alleged attack and a sample being taken. In the first few days, urine samples are useful to look for exposure to chemical agents. After that time frame, urine becomes less reliable although blood samples can still be used. However, this requires more sophisticated technology to look for agents in DNA, which can be stable and present for weeks after exposure. Only a few labs in the world are capable of this, including in the US and at Porton Down in the UK. Hair can also be examined, partly because it will pick up tiny traces of a chemical agent in the atmosphere. No-one wants to get into the Iraq situation where major decisions are based on limited intelligence. But given the problems of getting access to a war zone to gain conclusive evidence, finding absolutely definitive evidence may be hard and may take time. This may buy politicians in Washington and London time to work out what to do if something is found. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some of the Syrian Rebel's being backed by The US/UK are members of Al Qaeda, were they not bad guys at one time?. Whose side are we on? . Sorry there is only one side, The Bankers.
|
|
|
|
|
