The Red Line: Part Deux

#128
#128
Burhead said:
60% of Americans don't want intervention in Syria yet Washington is marching us to that path, brilliant.
Click to expand...

It is the one thing I would commend Obama for, staying out of this. I think it is mainly because he is too stupid to know what to do, but the result was what I wanted.

That said, I think he will falter and do something.
 
#129
#129
Burhead said:
Kerry's speech today pretty much confirmed that.
Click to expand...

Speaking of our leaders - has anyone noticed that whenever Hagel talks he stumbles a lot and says very little? No exactly confidence inspiring for the SoD.

Not sure what to make of this

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIbzd-ld8vQ[/youtube]
 
#132
#132
CNN just reported that Obama has not order a strike but is being give a list of options. A strike could come as early as midweek as the military is already staged and can strike within hours if Obama chooses to do so
 
#134
#134
Gramps said:
CNN just reported that Obama has not order a strike but is being give a list of options. A strike could come as early as midweek as the military is already staged and can strike within hours if Obama chooses to do so
Click to expand...

Here we go.

One of the options I've heard mentioned is destroying the stock pile of chemical weapons but wouldn't that just release the chemicals. If so they we in effect caused the resulting impact. Maybe it incinerates them?
 
#135
#135
The problem is that, to the extent there's a consensus for military involvement now, it's to send the message that chemical weapon use won't be tolerated.

But for deterrence to be effective, you've got to make the bad actor regret what he has done. In this case, where Assad is fighting for survival, that's a pretty high bar.

In other words, you need a significant retaliation, not just airstrikes on a few weapons installations.
 
#136
#136
Will Obama give Syria a speech like Bush did for Iraq and only give Assad so many hours to leave the country?
 
#137
#137
Velo Vol said:
The problem is that, to the extent there's a consensus for military involvement now, it's to send the message that chemical weapon use won't be tolerated.

But for deterrence to be effective, you've got to make the bad actor regret what he has done. In this case, where Assad is fighting for survival, that's a pretty high bar.

In other words, you need a significant retaliation, not just airstrikes on a few weapons installations.
Click to expand...

yep - too much and you swing the war to the other side and apparently we ain't too fond of the other side. Not enough and you don't accomplish anything.

The burning question is can you significantly deter the chemical weapon use?
 
#138
#138
volinbham said:
Here we go.

One of the options I've heard mentioned is destroying the stock pile of chemical weapons but wouldn't that just release the chemicals. If so they we in effect caused the resulting impact. Maybe it incinerates them?
Click to expand...

The CNN report said that just incinerating chemical weapons will release them, it has to get extremely hot to destroy, so that probably will not happen.

Bombing the airstrips may be the first option.
 
#139
#139
From Fox:
Defense expert Michael W.S. Ryan said Wednesday that destroying Syria's cache of chemical weapons could have "horrifying" consequences, as the U.S. weighs how to respond to reports that hundreds were killed in a poison gas attack in the war-torn country.Ryan, a senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation and author of the book, "Decoding Al Qaeda's Strategy: The Deep Battle Against America," warned that should the U.S. try to destroy Syria's chemical weapons, it runs the risk of detonating them in a densely-populated city."The problem is if they put them in cities, then we would be responsible - if we were to, let's say, bomb them in some way or send a missile strike against them - [for] creating a horribly toxic cloud over a large group of people," Ryan told KT McFarland on her show, "Defcon 3" on FoxNews.com. "I'm willing to bet that the Syrians themselves, if not the rebels, have them in places where it would be maximum problems."

Read more:*Defense expert: Destroying Syria's chemical weapons could have 'horrifying' consequences | Fox News
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#140
#140
CBS reporting that the US will release a declassified report on the chemical attack to drum up support for intervention in the next day or so.
 
#143
#143
Burhead said:
CBS reporting that the US will release a declassified report on the chemical attack to drum up support for intervention in the next day or so.
Click to expand...

There are U.N. inspectors on the ground. Aren't they going to report?
 
#150
#150
Gramps said:
The CNN report said that just incinerating chemical weapons will release them, it has to get extremely hot to destroy, so that probably will not happen.

Bombing the airstrips may be the first option.
Click to expand...

thermite will take care of it..worked on "The Rock"..
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top