War With Syria

Exactly. Someone killed someone; We don't know who. It could've been the rebel to commit the attack to gain support.

 

Yes, Lybia has not made any effort to hide it and has publicly said they support them.

 

I wasn't even aware that they were saying exactly this... I have CNN on right now and they just said that "The U.S. could strike in Syria within HOURS if Prez Obama gives the okay"...within hours? Wow. We are at war.

 

Hey, I call it as I see it. I'm a realist. If I realistically believed that something less severe than a military strike (war) was going to happen, then I would have LOVED to have started the conversation about something more positive.

 

god bless our troops fighting for our freedom / sarcasm

 

There has to be something there. All the players have been set up for this.

Someone wants something done.

Watch and see..

 

I wouldn't like to say you might find anything else less interesting to talk about.

CNN is only saying 'it's on the table', and is possibly likely 'if' - the exact same thing as when I said it's opinion.
COULD. IF.
How does that grow into 'we are at war'?

I also meant: They have financing through Qatar. They supply them through Croatia borders.

 

They have been quite open about it as they feel that the rebel forces should be armed. They have also had the co-operation of Turkey on allowing transportation of the shipments.

This was all reported back in about June and they stated they had been supplying them for a year at that point.

Edit: Found this article that goes into far more detail.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/22/w...s-get-libyan-weapons.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

CNN:

Options available to Obama range from ordering limited missile strikes to continued diplomatic efforts labeled by critics as a "do-nothing" approach.
Obama will be presented with final options regarding actions against Syria in the next few days, a senior administration official said Monday. Assuming the president decides to go ahead with a military response, any action could come as early as mid-week, though it could be later, the official cautioned.
Factors weighing into the timing of any action include a desire to get it done before the president leaves for Russia next week and before the administration has to make a decision on whether to suspend aid to Egypt because of the ongoing political turmoil there, the official explained. The administration also wants it to be a quick response to the use of chemical weapons, the senior administration official said.

 

Heat
Sorry, I've just had a few people be less that straight with me recently. I get cynical sometimes.

 

No actually my apology as I read the article and actually saved it way back and I should have posted it before. I did not think to, but you have a link now.

Interesting read.

 

Odon, you know you know I said this is not definite yet.
I have not been misleading or anything because I stated more than once that they are not saying it's definite.
And I do believe I have gone on to state that the reason I am going to proceed talking like it is something that IS going to happen, instead of something that COULD happen, is because I do not feel they would be informing us that "The U.S. could strike Syria militarily in the next few hours- as soon as Obama gives his okay" (which is exactly what CNN is saying!), if it was something that was not going to happen- if they were just gonna come back later on and say, "well, some other option that was on the table will be used instead."
Just, don't see it happening.

 

What was just SAID on CNN within the last hour was "Military strikes could begin in Syria within the next few hours- as soon as Obama GIVES HIS OKAY".

That is totally different from the things that you stated above. (which, yes, I've heard those things earlier- and then I heard what I quoted above.)

 

I just read an article that stated the United States, France, Great Britain, and Russia are all considering military action at this point. I think it is pretty reasonable to think that military action is very much on the table right now.

 

It's a highly manageable clusterfuck. The weapons inspectors over there at the moment will return some sort of wish/wash we think they did it verdict, we will at that point blow up a couple of dog food factories with some cruise missiles and say don't do it again... The only rebel faction that has shown any serious effectiveness against the Al-Assad regime happens to be affiliated with al-quaeda. We've bee funneling them weapons officially for 3 months, probably closer to 15 though, but we're in a damned if we do damned if we don't situation. We certainly don't want the rebels to win, nor do we want to engender more ill will by supporting a fellow like Assad. Unlike the previous regime, our current commander in chief has no emotional feelings about this situation. The best possible outcome for the U.S. is to appear to support the rebel fighters without actually doing anything to topple Assad's regime which is essentially keeping a cap on the chaos in the same manner Hussein's Baath party did in Iraq. This is not the start of WW3, this is the new normal.

 

Just name the companies that made the shit?

 

Merck, Bayer, Pfizer... doesn't really matter, some conglomerate of a subsidiary that only exists on paper. It's not like anybody really cares.

 

To the last two posts..... ^^^^^ um, what???

 

There are a finite and extremely small amount of companies/corporation/ nations that are capable of making munitions grade chemical weapons. I believe Mr Paulwenz is implying that targeting the makers of these weapons rather than the perpetrator of employment would be a wiser path for the world police to follow. Unfortunately, these sort of things make money and are hidden well, if something makes money and is hidden well then it is absolutely no international organization's benefit to uncover and shut down.