U.S. Concerned as Syria Moves Chemical Stockpile

Mya · Jul 13, 2012

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that "Syria has begun moving parts of its vast arsenal of chemical weapons out of storage facilities, U.S. officials said, in a development that has alarmed many in Washington."

July 13, 2012
U.S. Concerned as Syria Moves Chemical Stockpile - WSJ.com

On the other hand, some other news agencies are denying it, saying there is no evidence of it... we will have to wait and see.

Connery · Jul 13, 2012

Another poor move by Asaad if true, however, "the Syrian government denied chemical stockpiles have been moved. Syria is one of eight states – along with Israel and nearby Egypt – that have not joined the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, which means the world’s chemical weapons watchdog has no jurisdiction to intervene there."

Syria has a responsibility to keep the weapons safe so if they were moving them this would be a plausible reason to say they were doing so, but, I would not believe that for a second.

Thunder · Jul 13, 2012

the use of chemical weapons MUST be a red-line that would bring NATO military action.

apdst · Jul 13, 2012

Thunder said:
the use of chemical weapons MUST be a red-line that would bring NATO military action.

But...but...but...we can't meddle! This would be an unjust war of choice!

Sarcasm aside, I'm curious if any of those NBC weapons have Iraqi markings on them.

TheDemSocialist · Jul 13, 2012

Ok. If they use them that is an outrage. But first their most be proof and certain verification, and show signs that they will use chemical weapons on his own people. It is an outrage and horrendous im still standing behind that military intervention will just make this situation worse.

apdst · Jul 13, 2012

TheDemSocialist said:
Ok. If they use them that is an outrage. But first their most be proof and certain verification, and show signs that they will use chemical weapons on his own people. It is an outrage and horrendous im still standing behind that military intervention will just make this situation worse.

From a political standpoimt we should at least wait until they employ chemical weapons before intervening.

Also, we should be ready to deal with Iran if we do go into Syria.

TheDemSocialist · Jul 13, 2012

apdst said:
From a political standpoimt we should at least wait until they employ chemical weapons before intervening.

Also, we should be ready to deal with Iran if we do go into Syria.

We shouldnt go into Syria period. They are not threatening us or attacking our citizens. They are in a civil war. We should not get involved in civil wars, its simply not "our war".

apdst · Jul 13, 2012

TheDemSocialist said:
We shouldnt go into Syria period. They are not threatening us or attacking our citizens. They are in a civil war. We should not get involved in civil wars, its simply not "our war".

I agree, to a point.

TheDemSocialist · Jul 13, 2012

apdst said:
I agree, to a point.

Well we will agree to the point. But what point do you disagree with?

apdst · Jul 13, 2012

TheDemSocialist said:
Well we will agree to the point. But what point do you disagree with?

The point where the Syrian unrest becomes a threat to Amwrican interests.

Kane · Jul 13, 2012

Saddam/WMD:roll:

TheDemSocialist · Jul 13, 2012

apdst said:
The point where the Syrian unrest becomes a threat to Amwrican interests.

Of course some of our "interests" are being hurt. But unless its the threat of our countries sovereignty, lives it can no way be justified.

apdst · Jul 13, 2012

Kane said:
Saddam/WMD:roll:

Um...no...this thread is about Syria using chemical weapons.

apdst · Jul 13, 2012

TheDemSocialist said:
Of course some of our "interests" are being hurt. But unless its the threat of our countries sovereignty, lives it can no way be justified.

One has look at the long term possibilities, not just the here and now.

TheDemSocialist · Jul 13, 2012

apdst said:
One has look at the long term possibilities, not just the here and now.

What long term possibilities would those be?

upsideguy · Jul 13, 2012

apdst said:
From a political standpoimt we should at least wait until they employ chemical weapons before intervening.

Also, we should be ready to deal with Iran if we do go into Syria.

What does "deal with Iran" mean exactly?

Some of us never seem to learn..... Those that do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

of course, I will never see any posts from you telling us how the deficit is such grand problem given that you are more than happy to spend a $1B per week on another pointless, open-ended military venture.

apdst · Jul 13, 2012

TheDemSocialist said:
What long term possibilities would those be?

Right off the top of my head? If Assad destroyed the rebels, consolidating his power more than ever, he may be emboldened to tha point where he teams up with other ME countries amd attack Israel. Were Syria's military destroyed, the threat ahainst Israel would be hampered for decades.

apdst · Jul 13, 2012

upsideguy said:
What does "deal with Iran" mean exactly?

Some of us never seem to learn..... Those that do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

of course, I will never see any posts from you telling us how the deficit is such grand problem given that you are more than happy to spend a $1B per week on another pointless, open-ended military venture.

You're right; some people never learn. I still get respinses to my posts that address what I didn't say vice what I did say.

TheDemSocialist · Jul 13, 2012

apdst said:
Right off the top of my head? If Assad destroyed the rebels, consolidating his power more than ever, he may be emboldened to tha point where he teams up with other ME countries amd attack Israel. Were Syria's military destroyed, the threat ahainst Israel would be hampered for decades.

Ohh they ol doomsday scenario?
There is no evidence pointing to that. Why would Assad after destroying his country, deploying troops all over, destroying parts of his infanstructure, what makes you think all the sudden the idea of "hey lest team up and invade Israel" will pop up in his head?
No one is going to invade Israel soon especially Assad...
No evidence points to these accusations you are making.
Assad is just another tyrant which will sometime fall as a result to the Arab Spring

johnny_rebson · Jul 13, 2012

upsideguy said:
What does "deal with Iran" mean exactly?

I'll give you a hint. It involves sending our military to kick some major butt in a nation where they really deserve it.

TheDemSocialist · Jul 13, 2012

johnny_rebson said:
I'll give you a hint. It involves sending our military to kick some major butt in a nation where they really deserve it.

And in return we get the real costs of war

Moderator's Warning:

Image removed, nudity

We often forget the real costs of war.

apdst · Jul 13, 2012

TheDemSocialist said:
Ohh they ol doomsday scenario?
There is no evidence pointing to that. Why would Assad after destroying his country, deploying troops all over, destroying parts of his infanstructure, what makes you think all the sudden the idea of "hey lest team up and invade Israel" will pop up in his head?
No one is going to invade Israel soon especially Assad...
No evidence points to these accusations you are making.
Assad is just another tyrant which will sometime fall as a result to the Arab Spring

There's no way to determine to what extent Syria's infrastructure will be damaged; not until the dust settles.

A small scale civil war make be just what Assad needs to battle harden his army and prepare them for a full scale campaign

Before we start thinking in absolute terms, claiming that there's no way that it could happen. In 1978, Vietnam invaded Kampuchea and then Cambodia. That was only three years after they'd waged a very costly 20 year war.

apdst · Jul 13, 2012

TheDemSocialist said:
And in return we get the real costs of war

Moderator's Warning:

image removed

We often forget the real costs of war.

It's very offensive to use photos of dead American servicemen to make a political point.

TheDemSocialist · Jul 13, 2012

apdst said:
It's very offensive to use photos of dead American servicemen to make a political point.

Its reality. Not a "political point"

TheDemSocialist · Jul 13, 2012

apdst said:
There's no way to determine to what extent Syria's infrastructure will be damaged; not until the dust settles.

Yes much of its pretty destroyed already.

A small scale civil war make be just what Assad needs to battle harden his army and prepare them for a full scale campaign

Any proof that he is actually thinking this way?

Before we start thinking in absolute terms, claiming that there's no way that it could happen.

Im not saying there is no way it could happen im saying there is no proof that anyone is planning such a thing

In 1978, Vietnam invaded Kampuchea and then Cambodia. That was only three years after they'd waged a very costly 20 year war.

Yes. But it wasnt just out of the blue. There was evidence.

U.S. Concerned as Syria Moves Chemical Stockpile

Mya

Connery

Thunder

apdst

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

apdst

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

apdst

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

apdst

Kane

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

apdst

apdst

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

apdst

apdst

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

johnny_rebson

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

apdst

apdst

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist