Chemical weapons 'excuse for US to intervene in Syria' (Chinese media)

[alp227]

Source: BBC

Chinese state media have accused US President Barack Obama of planning to use Syria's chemical weapons as an excuse for intervening militarily.

The state news agency, Xinhua, was responding to a warning from Mr Obama that Syria would be crossing a "red line" if it tried to use such weapons.

"Once again, Western powers are digging deep for excuses to intervene militarily," it said.

China and Russia have blocked attempts to impose UN sanctions on Syria.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19345629

[Arctic Dave]

1. Obama is just as imperialistic as the most fervent PNAC member.

The truth sometimes sucks but it needs to be said.

[joshcryer]

7. The President would just strike the chemical weapons facilities.

And he's given fair warning.

Nothing will happen.

[Arctic Dave]

8. I'm glad he asked for your input.

Seems he has no problem bombing just about anything in the sights of a Predator.

[joshcryer]

11. That is unfortunate.

Still wildly popular with the American public.

[Arctic Dave]

15. I'm sure it will be part of his re-election strategy.

I can see the ad now, Look everyone, I bomb other countries that pose no danger to us".

[Poll_Blind]

9. Is that the strike plan your handpuppet Secretary of Defense told you in confidence?

PB

[joshcryer]

10. Nope, it's rational common sense.

Not paranoid conspiracy crap.

[Comrade Grumpy]

16. And when Syrian anti-aircraft defenses open up?

We'll just ignore them, right? I recall the Libyan scenario, with the massive NATO air attacks on anything that could be construed as threatening their air superiority.

But let's hope it doesn't come to that. The Syrians have said they will not use chemical weapons against their own people. And now the empire has laid down a marker.

[joshcryer]

23. No country on the planet can defend its facilities from our Tomahawk.

They fly low, they fly fast.

Anyway, as I said, nothing will happen, it's just posturing.

[Igel]

18. Really?

The chemical weapons facilties, storage facilities, the infrastructure that would make striking the facilities difficult, and anything suspected of being one of those things or assisting in the defense and support of one of those things (real or suspected).

But then NATO planes would be fired on, and that would be aggression that would require a response.

The problem is that Clinton was very quick to jump to conclusions about some other atrocities. She knew for sure what had happened, on what happened, and was willing to take action on it. That the events didn't happen as she said is a mere technicality.

Conclusion: If there's a sufficiently strong rumor for her to accept it as fact, then action will be taken. If the rumor turns out to be false, oh, well, you can't unring a bell and may as well go on with the full peal.

[joshcryer]

22. It would be done with Tomahawks. The US is just touting that ability.

We wouldn't even need planes in the sky though it's like drones would be used (and Obama isn't one to go into all out war over a lost drone, as we saw with the downed drone in Iran).

edit: oops, thought scud was a general term, but it refers to Russia's missiles...

[Comrade Grumpy]

26. What happens when CBW storage depots get hit by missiles?

It seems like that might be a bit messy, what with releases of deadly CBW agents...I don't really know, though, just sayin'.

[joshcryer]

27. Yep.

It'd be really nasty if it came down to it.

Which is why I simply don't think it will.

[oldsarge54]

13. Not so

Obama and Clinton both have shown the technique of intervening without boots on the ground. Imperialism implies desire to take a country and control it. This is not the case in Libya, nor in the Balkans. Please explain how intervening on the side of a popular uprising against a brutal government imperialism?

[Arctic Dave]

14. Boots have been on the ground.

Not in the numbers as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Who do you think is training these "popular uprisings"?

Seems an odd way of portaying military adventurism as being "not really happening" just because we don't have "lots of boots on the ground".

Bombing other countries that do not pose any type of threat to us so we can install a more pliable government to our liking is Imperialism.

[oldsarge54]

17. Give me a break

Libya, if any americans were there training people, Qaddafi would have had them jailed on shot. My other question, so you believe it is military adventurism to assist people in overthrowing their own dictators. Or is the real american way is to stand with eyes closed, and ears covered when governments are murdering their own people? What is your real motive, supporting dictators, supporting democracy, or just plain to hell with the rest of the human race, america first?

[Xithras]

19. There is no popular uprising.

You realize that even the rebels have now admitted that only about 30% of the population of Aleppo and the other cities actually support them, right? The rebellion is driven primarily by the population from the conservative countryside (who make up a minority of the population), alongside foreign fighters, at this point.

The original protests were for democracy. The people fighting at this point aren't looking for that, and they've said so.

In many ways, Syria today closely mirrors the Iranian revolution. It started out as a popular uprising by the people against a foreign supported totalitarian ruler. The totalitarian overreacted, the whole thing got violent, and by the time it was over the theocrats were in charge.

The people leading the current rebellion have made no secret as to what they want. A Sunni-led Islamic Republic. The Syrian National Council wants to implement a democracy, but even our own State Department is cutting off contact with them because it's becoming obvious that they have no actual control over anything happening in Syria. They are, for all practical purposes, the equivalent of the transitional government that briefly controlled Iran after the Shah fled...they talked a good game, but at the end of the day the fighters weren't taking orders from them (in a now-forgotten bit of history, the interim Prime Minister offered the Ayatollah the city of Qom, so he could create an Islamic version of the Vatican...the Ayatollah replied that the interim government needed to quit or he would "kick their teeth in", and proceeded to take the entire country.)

[oldsarge54]

20. Didn't you know

In virtually every civil war, the proportions are 1/3 for, 1/3 against, and 1/3 wish it would go away. This was true in the American Revolution. True in Nam, true in the US civil war, true (probably) in every war.

[Arctic Dave]

21. Jailed on shot?

Libya is a large country, very easy to go unnoticed. Although video did surface of blonde haired, blue eyed mercenaries in Libya.

Is it the American way for us to go eyes closed, ears covered? Why yes, it is. It has been that way for a very long time and continues to this day. That is, as long as they are "friend" of ours.

Funny thing about Libya is that they were one of the more liberal places in that part of the world and they had the highest level of living, education, medical and womens rights. What they also had, which the western powers did not like, was a very large taxation rate to extract oil from their borders.

[joshcryer]

28. Which is still in effect.

Oh, and the islamists aren't in power like in Tunisia and Egypt.

Which is what you didn't expect.

[Dkc05]

2. We should not get involved to save Israel's back side

Let the syian's, Lebenese and Israelis fight it out and leave us out this war. We need to focus on peace and stay at home. were no good at nation building. Obama sometimes is as agressive as Bush was. Get out of the middle east and focus on schools and building roads and bridges.

[David__77]

3. I agree with the Chinese assessment.

I think that there is zero basis for the US to intervene in Syria. No need no red herrings.

[SylviaD]

4. Hands off Syria, Mr. President! nt

[lunasun]

5. Once again, Western powers are digging deep for excuses to intervene militarily," it said.

nuff said

[Poll_Blind]

6. Well yeah. I can't really disagree there. I wonder how the rest of the world feels about...

...our, ah, penchant for doing the Sparta so regularly?

PB

[dipsydoodle]

12. Syria crisis: UK joins US in chemical weapons warning

The UK has joined the US in warning Syria that the use or threat of chemical weapons would force them "to revisit their approach".

The warning came after a telephone call between Prime Minister David Cameron and US President Barack Obama.

The PM also spoke to French President Francois Hollande. The three discussed building support for the opposition.

Earlier, Chinese state media accused Mr Obama of using the chemical arms issue as an excuse for military intervention.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19351020

Posted here as cross reference.

[cqo_000]

24. Russian official says chemical weapons are a valid threat, unlike Iraq's wmd

however Moscow says it has received guarantees from Damascus that Syrian forces will not use or move the chemical arsenal.

[quote]
“[Damascus] has given us very clear assurances that the Syrian government… will do everything to ensure secured and guaranteed storage of the chemical weapons. The weapons will be stored where they are now,” Gatilov told the Associated Press Thursday.

“We were assured a very strict control is exercised over the security of the chemical weapons storage and that there is no danger the situation might fall out of control,” he added.
[/quote]

http://rt.com/politics/russia-syria-chemical-assurance-419/

[joshcryer]

29. As one would suspect.

No one wants those weapons to get into the wrong hands or to be released to the overall environment.

But I guess Russia is planning to invade Syria now.

Oh wait, I suspect that will actually happen once this thing cascades into oblivion.

[AverageJoe90]

25. The hypocrites in Beijing can go FUCK themselves with hot poker irons......nt

[JPRG539]

30. Chemical weapons 'excuse for US to intervene in Syria' (Chinese media)

oh please..not ANYOTHER war???

cmon people...can't we at least try to take a decade off??