ArnoldRimmer said:
I think so too. But I also believe that ever since Obama announced the "red line", Assad probably strictly avoided using them. In Assad's current situation, the "advantages" of using chemical weapons are absolutely neglectable to the danger of provoking an avoidable US attack. There are rumors that the US has captured a conversation shortly after the recent chemical weapons attack, where people from the syrian government "in panick" asked the military forces for clarification on the attacks. If anything, this shows that even if the recent chemical weapons attack was indeed carried out by the syrian army, it was most probably not an order from the top, from Assad himself. But anyway, I too believe both sides have chemical weapons and have been using them at some time. There just are no "good guys" we could support, what is the point of attacking Syria? What or whom are they even planning to attack, if neither a "regime change" nor actual chemical weapons are even targets?
|
The point isn't that you should take their word for absolutely true, but it's worth noting the reason they didn't have teams in quicker is exactly because Syria refused them access to areas they wanted to test for chemical weapons attacks, the UK report just further backs up that line of reasoning.
Syria was just trying to limit it to the area the chemcial weapons attacks weren't there's. So they can use
As for a US attack.... there is no point.
That's why I think the talk of a setup is silly.
The US gets nothing out of this, and Obama has basically been backpeddling ever since he made that "Red line" pronouncement. I think he said it, simply because he thought like you did. Assad wouldn't go there.
Then he did, or probably more likely, forces obstensibly working for Syria have, and quite often...
and Obama is essentially left with doing nothing and being embarresed, or do a slight bombing campaign and pretend he did something since anything more then that would be unpopular.
I'd be shocked if the US got involved again after the 3day weekend of bombardment of non essential military targets they announced.
They'll probably just hit a few missle sites and airforce bases, stuff that won't actually effect the war in anyway and who's only real goal is to protect Israel from attacks on it... and giving Israel airforce a little insurance incase it decides to act. Nothing that couldn't of been done just by lending them some military hardware anyway.
As for newspapers. I don't actually have a "main" news soruce. News is always colored by the writer's bias intentionally or unintentionally, so i generally try to read about 3-5 sources that are likely to disagree on any news story i find interesting.
Not only does it give you a better perspective, it's fun to see how people can see the same thing differently.
