The US again repeated a vow this week to take military action against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad if it uses chemical weapons to crush the armed rebellion trying to overthrow it.
“Our concerns are that an increasingly desperate Assad regime might turn to chemical weapons, or might lose control of them to one of the many groups that are now operating within Syria,” said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday.
“We have sent an unmistakable message that this would cross a red line and those responsible would be held to account,” she added.
Starting early this week, US government officials and press reports citing claims that the Assad regime began weaponizing toxic chemicals prompted bombastic statements about what would trigger a US-led Western military action in Syria. This occurred in tandem with a NATO decision to put Patriot missile batteries along the Turkish-Syria border, a potentially dangerous provocation for an unstable region.
The Russian government on Tuesday claimed the West was knowingly overstating the threat from the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons stockpiles, adding tension to the geo-politics surrounding Syria’s civil war.
A case for war against Syrian regime based on its possession of chemical weapons, either their use or the potential for them to be captured by armed rebel groups, many with ties to terrorist groups that have killed civilians, has its own problems though.
“The Obama administration risks resurrecting the much-maligned Bush Doctrine of preemptive self-defense,” write three international relations scholars in Foreign Policy.
“Under international law, a state may only invoke its right of self-defense in the case of an actual or imminent attack,” they explain. “After the 9/11 attacks by al Qaeda, however, the Bush administration asserted a right of preemptive self-defense against terrorist groups and states that harbor them or could supply them with weapons of mass destruction (WMD),” but this “doctrine has a weak basis in international law and its legal recognition would improperly justify the use of force by powerful states.”
The Obama administration’s other option, according to the scholars, is to justify intervention as humanitarian under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. But this also has a weak legal basis and would probably not receive UN Security Council approval.
It´s more like a clearly desperate Hitlery Klingon will get out of her way for whatever israel demands of her, and American cannon fodder will follow…
I guess they will let fight the Jihadis and only deliver air force and advanced weapons to them. They promised the Muslim brotherhood, to rule and to get the Sharia.
The US regime obviously believes extreme Islamism is a good repression tools for those countries and believe that they could control them, like their best friend, the Saudi king.
However, may be the recent statement of a dumb Jihadi fighter in Syria, that they will not stop to fight, till the Al Qaida flag is on top of the Whitehouse, is not too unrealistic and funny, as it seemed to me at the first sight:
Hit and run guerrilla urban fighting experience is sufficient now after US sparked and controlled fighting in Bosnia, Chetchenia, Libya and Syria, and Arab oil money will buy any weapon they need for their fighters, who already live in the USA, a merger with repressed Latinos and blacks, could at least crash down USA in a civil and guerrilla war, which – as in the attacked Libya and Syria – is in a large extent actually not "freedom fighting", but just criminal group or individuals action, using this state of confusion for looting, raping and getting rich. This is how USA managed it in Libya and Syria. Why should it not work within USA.
Why should not Russia and China use it against USA, when they suffer from such US made "internal uprises".
To fully understand this, I suggest reading the English articles and videos on http://www.08oo.wordpress.com
That very same anonymous who have said that Syria is mixing chemicals making bomb out of it said to me, which also an anonymous.., that amount of atomic bombs US currently have in stockpile (2002): 10,600 (7,982 deployed, 2,700 hedge/contingency stockpile) Source of Info: Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project.
Now just think about it for a moment if and when U.S becomes "desperate" while this women in office ruling the country…, or if one of those Rices or one of those lesser evils in the office and he or she is desperate.., then what.., yeh yeh I know you democrats defenders.., U.S never going to use them.., that what you would say…, but I didn't said that U.S will.., I said when and if U.S becomes desperate and if she is the commander in chief. Yet I would ask you this.., why is it that every president since Roosevelt had a war, created, orchestrated or not by U.S under his name, this one have Syria.., the one before giving you the Afghanistan and then Iraq.., before him was Bill Clinton who gave you the Balkan wars.., so what is next president war is going to be.., Russia, China, South America.., by then the Iranians are living in hell, having all kind of domestic wars, the Syrian have become lawless country rulled by all kind of terrorism, so as Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Turkey.., Afghanistan, Pakistan and then what.., so I repeat my question.., what and if U.S becomes desperate.., what is she or her alike minded going to do.
For once you can tell the truth, without lying.
It is the US regime who makes the Syrian people and the President of Syria desperate since nearly two years !
They are conducting their long planned UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE with their Islamist killer mercenaries from all arab countries + Turkish military. This is a guerrilla war and war with endless media lies.
The whole US regime and the big money behind it needs to be sent to trial and electrical chair !!
Stop such idiotic headlines and articles , that turn the world upside down !!
See http://www.08oo.wordpress.com to get an impression what is really going on.
“Our concerns are that an increasingly desperate Assad regime might turn to chemical weapons, those responsible would be held to account,”
Well, Hillary, it's like this:
On March 18, 1969, the United States began a four year long carpet-bombing campaign in the skies of Cambodia, (using the favoured tool of those wishing to commit mass murder – napalm) devastating the countryside and causing socio-political upheaval that eventually led to the installation of the Pol Pot regime. Estimated number of civilian deaths – somewhere between 40,000 – 150,000.
Not only was nobody "held to account" but it was kept well hidden from the public. Now, Hilary, you were saying?
How about ….. in 2002 and 2003, the US government, usually through 'unnamed sources" constantly told the American citizens that Saddam Hussein had chemical and nuclear weapons and thus that the US had to go to war with him. 4800 Americans and somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis died because of those lies.
And no-one has been 'held to account'. Now, Hillary, you were saying?
Oh, and SOS Hillary was one of the supporters of that war, voted for it in the Senate, without even bothering to go down the hallway to read the classified intelligence reports that said all those 'unnamed sources' were lying. Speaking of being held to account ….
The lies that were told to start the Iraq War killed more Americans in Iraq than OBL killed on 9-11.
So, the great 'progressive', SOS Hillary, starts her Presidential campaign by telling the same lies about Syria. Perhaps she wants to run in 2016 on a slogan of "I've also killed more Americans than OBL"!
At the very least, do not forget this when 2016 rolls around. On the Democratic side, we'll be sure to be bombarded then with lots of Hillary propaganda about how wonderfully progressive she is. Just be sure not to forget this and the people that she's very likely to kill by putting out these unsourced anonymous statements in her hopes to start yet another war.
If only Assad could drop one of 'em bombs directly inside her mouth…
Regarding the upcoming Lewinsky memoir, Clinton added, “Our concerns are that an increasingly desperate Monica…"