Crossing the "Red Line"

Knotbuyinit

Veteran
Dec 12, 2011
1,299
421
Does any of this sound familiar?



THE WHITE HOUSE​
Office of the Press Secretary​
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 13, 2013

Statement by Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes on Syrian Chemical Weapons Use

At the President’s direction, the United States Government has been closely monitoring the potential use of chemical weapons within Syria. Following the assessment made by our intelligence community in April, the President directed the intelligence community to seek credible and corroborated information to build on that assessment and establish the facts with some degree of certainty. Today, we are providing an updated version of our assessment to Congress and to the public.

The Syrian government’s refusal to grant access to the United Nations to investigate any and all credible allegations of chemical weapons use has prevented a comprehensive investigation as called for by the international community. The Assad regime could prove that its request for an investigation was not just a diversionary tactic by granting the UN fact finding mission immediate and unfettered access to conduct on-site investigations to help reveal the truth about chemical weapons use in Syria. While pushing for a UN investigation, the United States has also been working urgently with our partners and allies as well as individuals inside Syria, including the Syrian opposition, to procure, share, and evaluate information associated with reports of chemical weapons use so that we can establish the facts and determine what took place.

Following a deliberative review, our intelligence community assesses that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year. Our intelligence community has high confidence in that assessment given multiple, independent streams of information. The intelligence community estimates that 100 to 150 people have died from detected chemical weapons attacks in Syria to date; however, casualty data is likely incomplete. While the lethality of these attacks make up only a small portion of the catastrophic loss of life in Syria, which now stands at more than 90,000 deaths, the use of chemical weapons violates international norms and crosses clear red lines that have existed within the international community for decades. We believe that the Assad regime maintains control of these weapons. We have no reliable, corroborated reporting to indicate that the opposition in Syria has acquired or used chemical weapons.

The body of information used to make this intelligence assessment includes reporting regarding Syrian officials planning and executing regime chemical weapons attacks; reporting that includes descriptions of the time, location, and means of attack; and descriptions of physiological symptoms that are consistent with exposure to a chemical weapons agent. Some open source reports from social media outlets from Syrian opposition groups and other media sources are consistent with the information we have obtained regarding chemical weapons use and exposure. The assessment is further supported by laboratory analysis of physiological samples obtained from a number of individuals, which revealed exposure to sarin. Each positive result indicates that an individual was exposed to sarin, but it does not tell us how or where the individuals were exposed or who was responsible for the dissemination.

We are working with allies to present a credible, evidentiary case to share with the international community and the public. Since the creation of the UN fact finding mission, we have provided two briefings to Dr. Åke Sellström, the head of the mission. We will also be providing a letter to UN Secretary General Ban, calling the UN’s attention to our updated intelligence assessment and specific incidents of alleged chemical weapons use. We request that the UN mission include these incidents in its ongoing investigation and report, as appropriate, on its findings. We will present additional information and continue to update Dr. Sellström as new developments emerge.

The President has been clear that the use of chemical weapons – or the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups – is a red line for the United States, as there has long been an established norm within the international community against the use of chemical weapons. Our intelligence community now has a high confidence assessment that chemical weapons have been used on a small scale by the Assad regime in Syria. The President has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has. Our decision making has already been guided by the April intelligence assessment and by the regime’s escalation of horrific violence against its citizens. Following on the credible evidence that the regime has used chemical weapons against the Syrian people, the President has augmented the provision of non-lethal assistance to the civilian opposition, and also authorized the expansion of our assistance to the Supreme Military Council (SMC), and we will be consulting with Congress on these matters in the coming weeks. This effort is aimed at strengthening the effectiveness of the SMC, and helping to coordinate the provision of assistance by the United States and other partners and allies. Put simply, the Assad regime should know that its actions have led us to increase the scope and scale of assistance that we provide to the opposition, including direct support to the SMC. These efforts will increase going forward.

The United States and the international community have a number of other legal, financial, diplomatic, and military responses available. We are prepared for all contingencies, and we will make decisions on our own timeline. Any future action we take will be consistent with our national interest, and must advance our objectives, which include achieving a negotiated political settlement to establish an authority that can provide basic stability and administer state institutions; protecting the rights of all Syrians; securing unconventional and advanced conventional weapons; and countering terrorist activity.

http://westwingrepor...hemical-weapons
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Well, Bush used the Weapons Of Mass Destruction argument, and of course he lied. But Obama must be telling the truth since the weapons in Syria are being used on the terrorists, or freedom fighters or rebels, or whatever they are calling those nice people that want to harm Americans.
 
Here's what this liberal thinks....a million dead Syrians who are killed by their own is better than ONE dead American sent in to support the Islamic rebels. Same thing in Iraq. Anybody notice how we go in to punish the secular bad guy....and allow the Isalmic extremists to gain power in yet ANOTHER country? Pull the troops about 7,000 miles to the west and let these bastards kill themselves. I don't care. The only result of sending American troops to oppose Assad is that we will be helping the very people who attacked us. We did it in Iraq. We'll most likely do it here. Of course, if we DO go into Syria for the exact same reason we went into Iraq....he gassed his own people....if 3 American soldiers die it will be an outrage. 5,000 dying was worth it because Freedom Fries taste so darn good.
 
I remember when he talked about Syria using gas would be crossing the line. Sounded more like an invitation than a threat. The only way I could support any level of US involvement is if SA, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait or some other ME countries step up the plate first. Then we can talk. Until then I do not see any need for US involvement and this is one promise I hope he breaks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
Here's what this liberal thinks....a million dead Syrians who are killed by their own is better than ONE dead American sent in to support the Islamic rebels. Same thing in Iraq. Anybody notice how we go in to punish the secular bad guy....and allow the Isalmic extremists to gain power in yet ANOTHER country? Pull the troops about 7,000 miles to the west and let these bastards kill themselves. I don't care. The only result of sending American troops to oppose Assad is that we will be helping the very people who attacked us. We did it in Iraq. We'll most likely do it here. Of course, if we DO go into Syria for the exact same reason we went into Iraq....he gassed his own people....if 3 American soldiers die it will be an outrage. 5,000 dying was worth it because Freedom Fries taste so darn good.

Question is, will it be an outrage to you, if Americans die and no WMD are found ?
Saddam had them, at one time too !
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Question is, will it be an outrage to you, if Americans die and no WMD are found ?
Saddam had them, at one time too !
Are you saying that you SUPPORT Obama going into Syria. Of course Saddam had WMD's...we all knew that...we GAVE them to him.

I'm saying we should get the #### out of the middle east and be willing to pay $6 a gallon for our SUV's. The ONLY reason that we are there isn't to spread democracy or protect Israel....it's the oil stupid. Pull the troops. Right now. Let them gas each other all they want. One less America hater is a good thing, don't you think? Because you gotta remember...the Muslim fundamentalists have declared jihad on Assad. If we go into stop Assad, we are siding with the people who hate us. Do you REALLY think that's a good idea?
 
Are you saying that you SUPPORT Obama going into Syria. Of course Saddam had WMD's...we all knew that...we GAVE them to him.

I'm saying we should get the #### out of the middle east and be willing to pay $6 a gallon for our SUV's. The ONLY reason that we are there isn't to spread democracy or protect Israel....it's the oil stupid. Pull the troops. Right now. Let them gas each other all they want. One less America hater is a good thing, don't you think? Because you gotta remember...the Muslim fundamentalists have declared jihad on Assad. If we go into stop Assad, we are siding with the people who hate us. Do you REALLY think that's a good idea?

Worked in Libya and Egypt.
 
Are you saying that you SUPPORT Obama going into Syria. Of course Saddam had WMD's...we all knew that...we GAVE them to him.

I'm saying we should get the #### out of the middle east and be willing to pay $6 a gallon for our SUV's. The ONLY reason that we are there isn't to spread democracy or protect Israel....it's the oil stupid. Pull the troops. Right now. Let them gas each other all they want. One less America hater is a good thing, don't you think? Because you gotta remember...the Muslim fundamentalists have declared jihad on Assad. If we go into stop Assad, we are siding with the people who hate us. Do you REALLY think that's a good idea?

Let's say we get out of the middle east, do you think the liberals will let the US extract it's own sources of energy? There are studies which show the US could be the #1 oil exporter. Put the Sierra Club in time-out and maybe we can bring the troops home.

The United States as the No. 1 oil exporter

Think Asian by ANDREW SHENG



http://biz.thestar.c...9&if_height=386


The game changer for US competitiveness is not just the total revolution in technology, but also the rise of shale oil. Improvements in the fracking technology to extract oil out of shale, developed mostly by the private sector, threaten to change the global energy landscape. With this technology, and the high level of shale oil resources in the United States and in nearby Canada, North America would become not only sell sufficient in energy production, but also a net energy exporter.
Oil prices are already under pressure, because Iraq is beginning to revitalise its oil production. Despite the retreat from the use of nuclear energy, the latest International Energy Agency report, published in November 2012, suggested that the world energy outlook would change dramatically in the face of improvements in energy efficiency, continued growth in use of solar and wind power, and unconventional gas production.
By around 2020, the US is projected to become that largest global oil producer, overtaking Saudi Arabia, and together with improvements in transport energy use, the US would become a net oil exporter by 2030, compared with the current position of a net importer of 20% of its energy needs.
This has very profound impact on the US competitiveness and geopolitical situation.
First, the US can either choose to tax the new-found energy source to reduce its fiscal debt or use the lower energy prices to boost its export and corporate competitiveness. By comparison, China, India and the Middle East would account for over 60% of the increase in energy demand.
This means that Chinese and Indian enterprises would continue to have higher energy costs than US companies, despite cheaper labour costs. Even cheap labour cost is no longer a real advantage with the rise of robotics and 3-D printing, which would enable home production instead of relying on imports.
The real upside for the US is that it can be much more hands-off in the Middle East political quagmire, whereas the energy dependent countries like China, India and Japan would be more affected by Middle East politics.
Hence, if a stable and strong country like Turkey can also get into turmoil, like last weekend, the game change could be much more profound.
Despite its many internal challenges, the US remains a haven of political stability in an increasingly turbulent world.
> Tan Sri Andrew Sheng is president of the Fung Global Institute.
 
Lets say we get out of the ME (never happen because the US needs to protect Big oil interests in the ME) do you think conservatives will ever allow or encourage meaningful investment and R&D into renewable energy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
Lets say we get out of the ME (never happen because the US needs to protect Big oil interests in the ME) do you think conservatives will ever allow or encourage meaningful investment and R&D into renewable energy?

Which conservative invested heavily in a clean source of renewable of energy? I'll give you a hint. Ever hear of the Pickens Plan? I heard if first hand in 2009 while having a dinner with him at a place called Karsten Creek.

He also had a hand in sinking Kerry's swift boat. Remember this election?

http://www.jibjab.co...inals/this_land
 
A "conservative" plan, complete with government subsidies for "up to half the incremental cost" of the trucks, and vague promises of "energy independence" -- but absolutely zero supporting data quantifying any possible actual shift in usage from OPEC deisel to quaker state natural gas -- designed primarily to benefit one particular conservative.

How special.

Imthought conservatives were all about the marketplace, as in, if it makes sense financially, then someone will "build it" and the market will move in that direction?

I thought conservatives were against government subsidies of private enterprise?

He does make a salient and mostly overlooked point about the "defense" industry tax dollars spent ensuring the free flow of OPEC oil.

Perhaps if the US taxpayer stopped giving the oil companies/shippers this free ride, and charged an appropriate tariff for this "service", then the market price of oil would reflect its actual cost, a big chunk of which is borne by the US taxpayer.

Then perhaps market forces would make alternative sources of energy attractive, and competitive, without subsidies.
 
As for his "swift-boating" Kerry...

Worst thing he could have possibly done, for the country, or himself.

Bush was an Oil Man, allied with Oil Men.

Pickens not as smart as you make him out to be
 
That would make him stupidly rich?

My family made a winning bet with Chesapeake. BP Capital, Boone Pickens made the same bet which was natural gas. CNG burns cleaner than diesel. Some people like Ifly hear oilman and run around with their fingers in their ears. We can't build pipelines from Canada so they find another customer, China.

We're shooting ourselves in the foot and will remain dependent on unfriendly countries for energy as long as we can't develop our own resources due to red tape.
 
Excuse me but when did we take over Syria? Last time I looked Syria was a sovereign nation not a colony of the United States. What moral authority to intervene do we have? NONE! Has Congress declared war while I was in the latrine? Lever them alone to determine their own destiny.
 

Latest posts