What's new

U.S : 'We are ready to go, like that'

USAHawk785

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
912
Reaction score
1
Country
United States
Location
United States
Washington (CNN) -- With a flurry of diplomatic signals and activity, U.S. officials sought Tuesday to lay the groundwork for a possible military strike on Syria in response to last week's suspected chemical weapons attack that Washington blames on President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

The White House offered legal justification, with spokesman Jay Carney telling reporters the large-scale use of chemical weapons in Syria presented a national security threat to the United States that required a response.

Carney reiterated that President Barack Obama had yet to make a final decision on how to respond to what U.S. officials characterize as the worst chemical weapons attack since former Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein launched a poison gas attack that killed thousands of Kurds in 1988.

The president continued to review options, Carney said, adding that "nothing has been decided" but assuring reporters some sort of response will come.

"Allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present a significant challenge to or threat to the United States' national security," he said.

Vice President Joe Biden made clear the administration's view of who was to blame, telling the American Legion that "there is no doubt who is responsible for the heinous use of chemical weapons -- the Syrian regime."

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry consulted allies and indicated potential imminent action by a coalition likely to include key NATO partners and regional powers.In another move, the United States postponed its involvement in talks scheduled for this week in Geneva on seeking a political solution to the Syrian civil war. Russia expressed disappointment at the U.S. decision and warned against any Western military strike on Syria.

Last month, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey provided Congress with a list of declassified U.S. military options for Syria that emphasized the high costs and risks of what he said would amount to "an act of war" at a time of deep budget cuts.

Dempsey's letter, dated July 19, listed U.S. assets in the region including Patriot missile defense batteries in Turkey and Jordan, as well as F-16 jet fighters positioned to defend Jordan from possible cross-border trouble. In addition, the Pentagon has sent four warships armed with cruise missiles to the region.

Hagel: 'Ready to go' if ordered on Syria chemical weapons - CNN.com



Days after the United States moved warships armed with cruise missiles into the region, Hagel told the BBC on Tuesday that forces were ready to carry out a strike if ordered. A senior Defense Department official told CNN that any strike could be completed "within several days."

"We are ready to go, like that," Hagel told the BBC, adding that "the options are there, the United States Department of Defense is ready to carry out those options."

images


images
 
.
@USAHawk785 do you have the approval of the congress and the U.N ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
. .
@USAHawk785 do you have the approval of the congress and the U.N ?



Options available to Obama range from ordering limited missile strikes to continued diplomatic efforts labeled by critics as a "do-nothing" approach.

The White House has ruled out sending ground troops to Syria or implementing a no-fly zone to blunt al-Assad's aerial superiority over rebels fighting to oust his regime.

On Monday, Carney said that the first step toward a military response in Syria would be the public release of a U.S. intelligence report on the August 21 event near Damascus that reportedly killed and wounded thousands.

A U.S. official who was not authorized to speak on the record told CNN that release of the intelligence report was planned for Tuesday, but Carney later said it would come out some time this week.

If the President wishes to initiate strategic strikes he may do so even without the approval of congress. However, more than likely, Congress will approve of a decision to strike Syria, possibly even going in that country on ground if necessary.

nice try!
............................


We went inside Iraq back in '03 without approval of the UN. The loss of 4,000+ American soldiers in the acquisition of our goal should be testament to the Will of the United States Armed Forces.

We overran Iraq in 2 weeks, Syria, if necessary, would fall within 1 week.

We have allies in Turkey and Israel who are dying to go in with us. :coffee:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
We overran Iraq in 2 weeks, Syria, if necessary, would fall within 1 week.

We have allies in Turkey and Israel who are dying to go in with us. :coffee:
Of course the US can go there; the problem is coming back. :azn: Post-Assad Syria will be nightmare of US and Israel, as Syria has already become the hub of J!hadists.

And no, Netanyahu has already said that Israel won't meddle in the issue, and has warned Assad not to drag the war into Israel if attacked by West.
 
.
Let the cards fall. As soon as Syria collapses, the lifeline that connects Iran to Hezbollah Lebanon will be cut.

Strategically, Assad's demise benefits Israel. If it benefits Israel, it benefits the United States. :azn:
 
.
Let the cards fall. As soon as Syria collapses, the lifeline that connects Iran to Hezbollah Lebanon will be cut.

Strategically, Assad's demise benefits Israel. If it benefits Israel, it benefits the United States. :azn:

You are so optimistic :lol: No, Post-Assad Syria will be worse for everyone that you care about - Israel, US, Syrian Christians. US military intervention would be limited to a bunch of cruise missiles btw, according to your Obaboon.
 
. .
Let the cards fall. As soon as Syria collapses, the lifeline that connects Iran to Hezbollah Lebanon will be cut.

Strategically, Assad's demise benefits Israel. If it benefits Israel, it benefits the United States. :azn:

as does the rise of al qaeda, evidently :laugh:
 
.
We went inside Iraq back in '03 without approval of the UN. The loss of 4,000+ American soldiers in the acquisition of our goal should be testament to the Will of the United States Armed Forces.

We overran Iraq in 2 weeks, Syria, if necessary, would fall within 1 week.

We have allies in Turkey and Israel who are dying to go in with us. :coffee:
What was the financial cost of that war?
 
.
as does the rise of al qaeda, evidently :laugh:

No one can be blamed for "the rise of al qaeda" in syria except assad. He released 90% of al qaeda leaders from jail back in 2011, after a few months of peaceful protests as a warning to the west. Including for example Abu Khalid al Suri,considered al Qaeda's most prominent thinker! and he was sent by al Zawahiri to arbitrate between JAN and ISIS.
 
. . .
Of course the US can go there; the problem is coming back. :azn: Post-Assad Syria will be nightmare of US and Israel, as Syria has already become the hub of J!hadists.

And no, Netanyahu has already said that Israel won't meddle in the issue, and has warned Assad not to drag the war into Israel if attacked by West.

US already has the FSA there, and the Saudis and other will also be willing to send their armed groups. It s whole different game than Iraq. This time AQ is on US side.
 
.
Let the cards fall. As soon as Syria collapses, the lifeline that connects Iran to Hezbollah Lebanon will be cut.

Strategically, Assad's demise benefits Israel. If it benefits Israel, it benefits the United States. :azn:

I am no fan of Assad but the people who are going to Replace him Hint - Al Queda

how will Replacing Bad With Badder benefit The united states not to mention the Syrians who will Blame the US & it's allies for demise of their country
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom