Is Syria next?

texan

Well-Known Member
Then why did GW not go into Syria after them?

Besides, "if" this sarin gas used by Syria is from Iraq, does anyone dare question what the shelf life might be of this gas? I mean at the least we are talking right at 10 years old so again, anyone question the shelf life?

If the shelf life has expired, this means the Sarin gas used in not Iraqi. Therefore this Sarin gas either was made outright by Syria or it came from other sources. Who might those other sources be? Who in the region would have access to Sarin gas should they need or want it?

Great counter point.

If only Truth were told by all. Us the US, Russia, and others.

But one can not shake me, that we will one day know all of this.

Everything is written in the books, to be used on that day.

Revelation 20:12 Yes sir, I am one of those.................
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
EngleB20130427_low.jpg
 

klein

Für Meno :)
Obama is president.

He talked about "the red line".

What's his next move ?????

The next move is to talk to the Allies, such as Canada, Britian, the whole Nato and beyond.
He is not as crazy as G.W Bush to do it all alone, and spend trillions.

I can guarantee you now, that Canada will join in this time around, because unlike last time (WMO's of Saddam were unproven), this time it looks like Syria has been using the gas-bombs. Just a matter of days or weeks, before it's close to 100% proven.
Obama won't jump the gun on this one. - Not after Iraq & Afhganistan huge failures and waste of money and Amrican lives.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
The next move is to talk to the Allies, such as Canada, Britian, the whole Nato and beyond.
He is not as crazy as G.W Bush to do it all alone, and spend trillions.

I can guarantee you now, that Canada will join in this time around, because unlike last time (WMO's of Saddam were unproven), this time it looks like Syria has been using the gas-bombs. Just a matter of days or weeks, before it's close to 100% proven.
Obama won't jump the gun on this one. - Not after Iraq & Afhganistan huge failures and waste of money and Amrican lives.

I would rather bluff, and tell Assad that the Israelis have informed us that if the chemical weapons are not turned over to either us or a reliable 3rd party such as Russia or China within 24 hours, that they (the Israelis) will destroy suspected storage sites using low-yield nukes. Assad has no way to defend against an Israeli air attack, so he might believe us and turn the weapons over without the need for force to be used. Or...we just green-light a conventional Israeli attack and stay out of the way while they take care of business. Every country in the region hates Israel anyway, they dont care what anyone thinks of them, so let them be the bad guys and do the dirty work.
 

klein

Für Meno :)
I would rather bluff, and tell Assad that the Israelis have informed us that if the chemical weapons are not turned over to either us or a reliable 3rd party such as Russia or China within 24 hours, that they (the Israelis) will destroy suspected storage sites using low-yield nukes. Assad has no way to defend against an Israeli air attack, so he might believe us and turn the weapons over without the need for force to be used. Or...we just green-light a conventional Israeli attack and stay out of the way while they take care of business. Every country in the region hates Israel anyway, they dont care what anyone thinks of them, so let them be the bad guys and do the dirty work.

Ha !!!!
Who ends up paying for that ?
Americans !
Don't think so !
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
Ha !!!!
Who ends up paying for that ?
Americans !
Don't think so !

We dont have any good options in Syria, only bad ones.

If the Syrian chemical weapon sites need to be taken out we should stay out of the way and let Israel do it since they are the ones who are directly threatened by them.

We can certainly support their efforts indirectly by supplying intelligence or satellite photos if needed, but for us to unilaterally take action on our own would be a mistake.

If there were enough nations in the region such as Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE...plus Europe...that started calling for (and being willing to participate in) air strikes perhaps at that point we could join in with them, but we need to be followers and not leaders in such an endeavor.
 

klein

Für Meno :)
We dont have any good options in Syria, only bad ones.

If the Syrian chemical weapon sites need to be taken out we should stay out of the way and let Israel do it since they are the ones who are directly threatened by them.

We can certainly support their efforts indirectly by supplying intelligence or satellite photos if needed, but for us to unilaterally take action on our own would be a mistake.

If there were enough nations in the region such as Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE...plus Europe...that started calling for (and being willing to participate in) air strikes perhaps at that point we could join in with them, but we need to be followers and not leaders in such an endeavor.

Basically, just what Obama did in Libya.
Glad you agree with the president on this one !
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
130908_600.jpg
He's the laughing stock of the world for opening his mouth......just crawl back into one of your 18 holes and quit trying to be tough.........you aren't.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member

That was one element I was thinking when I made my post #40 in this thread. When reading about Sarin gas (starting with Wikipedia and going forward) the stuff has a short shelf life. Literally a few weeks. The Iraqi's under Saddam Hussein did try to boost the shelf life by increased purity but from the various de-classified intel I've read, you're still only gaining another week or 2. The chances that Syria is deploying Iraqi made Sarin is all but unlikely.

Could Syria be making their own? That's a mixed bag at the moment from what I can tell. There are even questions that it wasn't Sarin and may have been something else still. But let's say Syria had Sarin and could use it. I would think they would consider that should they use such, they would know this act would be a game changer and open the doors for a global call for regime change. Political leaders can be irrational so it's not beyond the pale but for the moment I'm not convinced Syria has reached that end.

But who would benefit from such an occurrence? Israel would have to be at or near the top of such a list. And using rogue means to such an end is not beyond their style IMO. One need look no further than the assassination arm of Mossad otherwise known as MEK to realize that potential. Just as Israel and Mossad created Hamas to disrupt Palestinian efforts at self governance. Neither of these actions are secret and in fact well known and documented.

Col. Wilkerson's comments are the first of what I've waited to see if it would begin to come out and now that someone has begun to beat the grass, let's just see if more join and it startles the snakes. That may be the moment of truth. I salute Col. Wilkerson for speaking out as he's been brave enough to do so before. From the Colonel's POV, he saw a good man in his boss get used and he's been willing to say so. Over the last century or so we've had lots of brave soldiers speak out pointing at the smoke and we still refuse to consider that it just may well mean there really is a fire.

And for the record, I agree with Obama and his "wait and see" attitude on this issue although with the vested interests involved not sure how long he can stay that course. He and the rest of us may well be the political victims of zionist gamesmanship and he's wise at least to wait it out to see what develops. He's not done a lot to cheer about on the foreign front from my POV but I'll give him credit where I think credit is due. We've been lied down this road before often by the same cast of characters so restraint is prudent.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
[

And for the record, I agree with Obama and his "wait and see" attitude on this issue although with the vested interests involved not sure how long he can stay that course. He and the rest of us may well be the political victims of zionist gamesmanship and he's wise at least to wait it out to see what develops. He's not done a lot to cheer about on the foreign front from my POV but I'll give him credit where I think credit is due. We've been lied down this road before often by the same cast of characters so restraint is prudent.[/QUOTE]


The wait & see is OK....the problem Is he shot off his mouth early about these red lines and made him look more like a schoolyard bully who's all talk and no action. He's not a leader, he's the threatner-in-chief!! Maybe he shouldpractice his "wait and see" thing.
Malia & Sasha should take notes.....their dad doesn't follow through on threats....so misbehave all you want...no consequences await!!
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
I agree with Obamas wait-and-see approach. We do not have enough factual information to justify any sort of military action at this time. The last time we acted pre-emptively in regards to WMD's in the Middle East, it resulted in 10 years of war in Iraq that accomplished nothing.
 

texan

Well-Known Member
Israel attacked the missles (pictured below) provided by the ever hateful of all Jews, Iran.

They bombed these near Damascus yesterday.

We, the US, would do the same exact thing, if a Mexican cartlel has 10 of these within range of our borders.
 
Top