US and British Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria

[[WS]Jacob]

The United States is expected to give physical and intelligence proof that the government conducted the attack if the evidence is sufficient there is a good chance that Russia will back down.

I doubt Russia would back down with evidence from the US, even if it proved chemical weapons were used. I think the international community will trust the evidence more strongly if it comes from the UN itself as they are tasked with investigating this. I am opposed to this conflict anyway but at least if we do decide to commit I want to see what the UN investigators come back with, before we start firing bullets at the wrong target.

[Dillon]

The UN is not trying to figure out who has used the chemicals they are only trying to figure out IF chemicals were used. If evidence can actually confirm they committed the crime then odds are good that Russia will not stop a US invasion

[Dolfagr]

The UN essay will be handed in four days from now. Depending on that, the decision will be made if military intervention is needed. Russia claimed that if the UN evidence suggests Syria used chemical agents it will not interfere in the conflict.

[Tomer]

Syria, Iran and all the terrorist groups such as Hizballah and hamas said that if US and UK decides to attack them, they will attack Israel.
So if that's gonna happen, Israel will step in and attack too, then Egypt/Jorden/Lebanon/Russia might join the other side and you get world war 3 in 1 minute.

Everyone is omnipotent, you know this all situation, for us, is immeasurable.
u haz hideaway, u ok. ( enough here )
I try not to express my political speculations.
~NP. ( I'm just aghast, fretful and concerned because all of this :S ).

[Dillon]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324591204579039011328308776.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[Ehks]

I didn't say the rebels were terrorists, you did.

I doubt NATO would let a terrorist rebel party get into power.

You just did it again.. In your own very comment..

The UN essay will be handed in four days from now. Depending on that, the decision will be made if military intervention is needed. Russia claimed that if the UN evidence suggests Syria used chemical agents it will not interfere in the conflict.

If the UN evidence suggests that the Syrian Regime did not cause this massacre... U.S / UK / France would not interfere --- > Russia wouldn't need to even bolster the Syrian military.

Either ways:

Russia will support the Syrian government, just not directly through its own military.


What's funny is why would the Syrian government even risk use chemical weapons? To attract the west ? It doesn't seem right to me. Not to mention that some Syrian soldiers had been infected.. It's just a game played to point -more- fingers at Assad.. Well it's poorly played.

[Mikal]

Which is why you look ignorant. They are terrorists to the government. The term 'terrorist' doesn't appeal to someone who terrorizes the West necessarily;

ter·ror·ism  (tr-rzm)

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

-> Which is exactly what the 'rebels' do.

Both the Syrian Gov and the Rebels are terrorizing eachother and their whole country, so it doesn't make a difference wether NATO interfere or not, one side has to go to make the war end.

The UN is not trying to figure out who has used the chemicals they are only trying to figure out IF chemicals were used. If evidence can actually confirm they committed the crime then odds are good that Russia will not stop a US invasion

The US would not 'invade' and nor would any other NATO country, they would simply give intel and use air to ground strikes against the Syrian gov, just as other NATO countries would.

You just did it again.. In your own very comment..

You are clearly mixing my posts up to make it look like I'm contradicting myself, maybe it's just you who has a lack of understanding of English that makes you do this, either way what I meant is, if they believe the Syrian Gov actually used chemical weapons, which is illegal, where as the rebels have not actually committed any war crimes, then they have all reason to attack the Syrian Government, wether the rebels are terroristic or not the Syrian Gov should not be using chemical weapons, providing they actually did of course, either way what I said is, if NATO helps over throw the Assad regime, they are more than likely to monitor who actually gets elected/into power so that no Al-Qaeda linked rebels get to take any influential positions, thats even if it is to be a rebel leader that gets in, and not a more civilised, senior and democratic member of the current government.

What's funny is why would the Syrian government even risk use chemical weapons? To attract the west ? It doesn't seem right to me. Not to mention that some Syrian soldiers had been infected.. It's just a game played to point -more- fingers at Assad.. Well it's poorly played.

Well, because they've denied the UN access for the past few weeks knowing that they legally could, and have now only just let them in, maybe after cleaning up the mess that they made with chemical weapons?

[Reece]

The US is certain an alleged poison gas attack in Syria was carried out by the regime of President Bashar al Assad after listening to intercepted telephone calls, according to reports.

US intelligence services overheard panicked conversations in which a Syrian defence official demanded an explanation for the attack from a leader of a chemical weapons unit, according to the Foreign Policy website.

The phone calls, as well as photo evidence and local accounts, are reportedly part of the portfolio of evidence the US is preparing before proceeding with a response - possibly a military strike - in the coming days.

But the intercept raises questions about the nature of last Wednesday's attack in the capital Damascus that is believed to have killed hundreds of people, including civilians.

If a Syrian defence official was questioning the chemical weapons unit about the assault, it raises the possibility that it was a rogue event.

Or was it cleared at the highest levels, without the say-so from mid-level defence officials?

"It's unclear where control lies," one US intelligence official told Foreign Policy.

"Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?"

The Syrian regime has denied carrying out the attack, saying it was actually the rebels who were behind it with the aim of portraying the Assad government in a bad light.

US officials are mulling what type of military strike in Syria might deter future chemical weapons attacks and are trying to assess how President Assad would respond, two officials said.

The Obama administration has insisted the Syrian government must be punished for its alleged use of toxic gas on civilians last week but said regime change was not on the agenda.

US intelligence agencies are preparing a report laying out the evidence against Mr Assad's government on chemical weapons.

The classified version would be sent to key members of Congress, and a declassified version would be released publicly.

However, the White House says it was already convinced and was planning a possible military response and is seeking support from international partners including Britain and France.

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council - the UK, US, China, France and Russia - have discussed a British draft resolution that would allow military action in Syria.

But the resolution has stalled due to Russian "intransigence," the US said.

Meanwhile, a UK parliament vote on Thursday will not authorise direct military involvement in Syria as the British government indicated there would be fresh efforts to achieve the UN resolution.

Any direct action by UK forces will require a further vote in the House of Commons once the UN has considered a report from weapons inspectors investigating the Damascus attack.

British Prime Minister David Cameron insists any use of force would only be a response to the use of banned chemical weapons and would be legal and proportionate.

[[WS]Jacob]

If they are going to war, let the public see the evidence. We know what David Cameron is like lying, get him to release the evidence so we can be sure he hasn't just made it up to justify going to war.

[Ehks]

You are clearly mixing my posts up to make it look like I'm contradicting myself, maybe it's just you who has a lack of understanding of English that makes you do this, either way what I meant is, if they believe the Syrian Gov actually used chemical weapons, which is illegal, where as the rebels have not actually committed any war crimes, then they have all reason to attack the Syrian Government, wether the rebels are terroristic or not the Syrian Gov should not be using chemical weapons, providing they actually did of course, either way what I said is, if NATO helps over throw the Assad regime, they are more than likely to monitor who actually gets elected/into power so that no Al-Qaeda linked rebels get to take any influential positions, thats even if it is to be a rebel leader that gets in, and not a more civilised, senior and democratic member of the current government.

Riiight.

The US would not 'invade' and nor would any other NATO country.

No no no, U.S invade a country? When the hell did that ever happen.
Like 16+ countries.

Well, because they've denied the UN access for the past few weeks?

Can you prove that they actually did that?

How can the government use chemical weapons, or any other weapons of mass destruction, in an area where its troops are situated?

"Khan al-Assal was the site of a chemical weapons attack allegedly carried out by rebels in March 2013. In an analysis for Iranian PressTV, Finian Cunningham said that the massacre was carried out with the aim to erase evidence for the chemical attack and eliminate witnesses."

Why didn't the UN react to it?. The rebels have done it before, and I'm positive they are behind Damascus'.

For your information, the rebels are composed of:
- Syrian Free Army
- Nusra front ( Which is composed of various nationalities such as: Gulf area / Chechnya / North Africa( Tunisians Libyans - Moroccans - Algerians.. ) )
- European radicals Muslims have been fighting in Syria ( Spanish / Belgium ...... )

And these are not only fighting against the Syrian government, they often shoot at each others as well.

I'm sure they have their hands on chemicals and are capable of using them.

[KhornateMonkey]

British Prime Minister David Cameron Tony Blair insists any use of force would only be a response to the use of banned chemical weapons and would be legal and proportionate.

[Mikal]

What possible reason would they have to invade Syria if it's not over chemical weapon usage, I mean Syria doesn't really have anything worth taking through invasion, unless of course they want to get Iran pissed off, so that they attack NATO and NATO attacks Iran, that way the US could get what it's always wanted in Iran.

[Ehks]

They want to get Iran pissed off.

Exactly.

One of the main reasons:

Syria is critical to Iran in that it provides it a geographic thoroughfare to Lebanese Shi`a militia Hizb Allah, which is one of the crown jewels of the Iranian revolution.

[Dillon]

The US has plans to do purely Missile and air attacks. According to the link I posted up above the US wants to get in and out quickly. They want the attack to happen within the next week, Thursday August 29th so tomorrow and following traditional order after debating with the Air Force veteran next to me they will attack at night +7 hours from US Atlantic Coast we estimate 1-3PM Tommorow (Atlantic)

[EliteTerm]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/30/us-syria-un-idUSBRE84S1AT20120530

Well that's nice....