Will Obama stick to his word over Syrian chemicals?
 

The evidence for chemicals being used by the Assad regime, is mounting. First the Israelis rang the alarm bell, then the US' Chuck Hagel, now the British become loud about it, too.

Obama had once set a red line of which he said if it get trespassed it would mean the engagement of the US military. The red line he has drawn back then was chemical weapons being used.

I am strictly against any modern weapons being delivered to the Syrian opposition, I am also against fincial funding of them. And even more I am against any military engagement by Western or Russian forces in that country.

However the valid question has risen now whether Obama has just given a worthless piece of sound when making his statements, or whether he will stick to what he said and will authorize the threatened consequences and get US military forces involved now.

Israel will have a close look on what he does, or does not. Because he has promised to stand by Israel when Iran is too close to getting the bomb. If Obama now does not drew consequences from the triggering of Syrian condition that he has set up, then the Israelis will have little trust in assuming that when Iran trespasses Obama's line, Obama then will stand by his announcement to play the military card together with Israel (which by then will be too late anyway, I claim with being 95% certain on that).

P.S. IMO, Obama should have never made that announcement that now is haunting him. It is a lose-lose situation. Either he is the president whose word is worth nothing (and that will be recognised by Israel and other allies in Asia), or he is the president having started another US military operation in support of Islamic fundamentalists and despite a hopeless financial situation of the nation. This is the outcome when hope is being made the only basis of decision-making, instead of cold-blooded reason.

lol

politics and diplomacy .....

It definitely is a lose - lose situation. I don't think we'll see a US intervention in Syria any time soon though. The conflict would have gotten a hell lot more media attention then by now (hey, we have to make sure the people know who the bad guys are before someone goes into that conflict, right?).
Anyway I would suggest to stay as far out of this as possible. No funding of either side (except perhaps for humanitarian relief in the refugee camps), no weapons and definitely no troops!
Actually I absolutely can't fathom why the "rebels" are quiet often portrayed as the good guys, while they commit atrocities which aren't short of what Assad's thugs do. I think with Assad gone Syria will plunge into chaos and violence. :nope:

I can see the weapons ban being lifted, there were murmurings the other day from, I think it was either Germany or the UK, about lifting the ban.
I can't see any boots on the ground occurring though, although there is the potential for 'No fly zones' ala Libya.

But, like Schroeder said, it's Lose-Lose. Sometimes in diplomacy there's a time where you really just have to keep your mouth shut, like China and Russia...but at the same time, if you're America, you really don't have that option as you are supposed to set the tone and direction of global politics.

"Will Obama stick to his word...."

lol, going by his track record, and that of every president and politician across the globe...... er, probably not. :O:

Beside Israel, obviously Iran will also look very closely what the US are doing now.

And China will also look (Taiwan, and the clash with Japan over those islands).

And Saudi Arabia.

Ha, and North Korea.

The possibility to send the wrong sigfnals from Washington into the world, with far-reaching consequences, are "endless".

As Oberon said: sometime you better just keep your mouth shut. What Obama did, in German chess-speak is called "lavieren" (meaning that in a position where you cannot enforce something positive, you wash/you manouver and by that do your mandatory turns, but at least do not compromise your position's strength). Obama "laviert" a lot, and here he has failed in keeping his position closed and strong, but allowed a vulnerability opening up. That is how "lavieren" should not be done. He either will go to war - or he will necessarily allow to see how other opponents are exploiting the gap and widening the breach at probably even higher longterm strategic costs to the US.

Because one of the groups attacking are actually defected syrian armed forces and civilian volunteers. Their goal is protecting the syrian people and getting rid of Asaad.

Personally I think that stating that the use of biological weapons would have consequences was a good idea. But as far as what the US and NATO can do, there are a lot of wrong decisions they can make and only a couple good ones.

The Russians are allied with the Asaad regime.

And here lies the problem that I have. There are so many more or less independent groups that you can't support the "rebels" without supporting terrorists and extremists as well. We've seen how well that worked in Soviet occupied Afghanistan.

This could be good decision only if there is something of substance behind it.
If nothing is done it makes it very bad decision with far reaching implications.
Mach worse than keeping your mouth shot.

This.:salute:

Wow the Israelis rang the alarm bell. Now while i 'respect' the Mossad (if this is the right word for any security service) for its military intelligence i really think they might have a tiny small almost invisible reason or better agenda, for such alarms.
Then Chuck Hagel and 'the British' - i take it if anyone really had evidence it would be the Mossad, all else is just propaganda.

Why don't 'the British', the USA, edit: Russia's and Germany's politicians just check their delivery bills, that way they will know exactly how much and which chemical weapons Assad has.
:hmm2:

The vast majority in Syria (said to be minimum 85%) wants a sharia-based regime and a fundamentalist state order. That is not better news for many groups of people, especially women, Jews and Christians. There must be a reason why the number of fleeing Christians and Jews from Libya, Egypt, Iraq and Afghanistan is growing, not shrinking, since regime change.

We cannot have any desire to assist in creating in these circumstances.

Instead, we should put these dark places under quarantine and run a blockade against them.

Just image the day when the many djihadists from Western countries that went to Syria, will return with their war experiences, connections and experiences of having gotten radicalized even more, with their inhibitions having been lowered tremendously. they failed to integrate before, now they will become real textbook examples for integration? Hardly. In other words: even here in our own home countries things will become worse with Islamic communities.

We still don't have confirmation from a reliable source that indicates that Sarin has been used or by whom.

I think it is a bit premature to make any decisions.

It should be noted that the ability to respond has been somewhat diminished by the experience with Dubbya and the WMDs. (Not a bad group name, that...) In order not to appear as just another stupe who going to drag the country into another sensless intervention, whoever makes such a decision post-Dubbya is going to have to be very, very careful to dot the 'i's and cross the 't's. The requisite and bar for due diligence is much higher now...

<O>

mixed up
 

I bet the spec forces are on the ground now to verify evidence. They should be. O would want reliable verification before doing the nasty. What would he do anyway?

Russia is no friend to the US but is to Syria. We can speculate about missile attacks, no fly zone, and so on but Russian reaction is likely.

I'd like to see that evidence used in the World Court to declare war criminals and the Syrian government a rogue state.:dead: