Does anyone believe that Syria would be on the way to being disarmed of chemical weapons if it were not for the fact that Obama threatened to carry out a few days of military strikes against Syrian military and other strategic assets?
Assad is now dropping “barrel bombs” on the rebel strongholds. They are barrels filled with nails, screws, ball bearings and high explosives. They seem to have killed quite a number of rebels.
How this differs from poison gas (in any significant way) I don’t understand…presumably it is 'nicer".:smack:
“Barrel bombs” (which aren’t much different from any other sort of explosive bomb in military use) are different from chemical weapons in that they’re more targeted. If you attack someone with poison gas, and then the wind shifts, you’re attacking someone else with poison gas instead. That’s useful for terrorizing an entire town, but not really for any legitimate military purpose, which would depend on having particular targets. Conventional bombs, though, pretty much go where you put them, and do damage in some radius around that point, regardless of wind or other factors beyond your control. Sure, you can use them to attack a town (you can use anything to attack a town), but you can also use them for things like attacking a column of infantry.
Basically what you are saying is you have absolutely no idea what this conversation is about.
Are you suggesting that President Obama draw a red line on barrel bombs and threaten military strikes against the Assad regime in order to get the Russians to step up on a moral issue once again and convince the Syrian Government to quit making and using barrel bombs as they did with regard to Chemical Weapons?
Indeed…"Barrel Bombs"are the "new"poison gas!
Death from either is still death.
But one is contravened by international agreement and treaty and one isn’t, which is the actual issue. It’s hard for me to understand your confusion on this, to be honest. Some weapons are banned or contravened, some aren’t. Just because two different weapons both cause death doesn’t make them equal in the eyes of the international community.
He doesn’t have a confusion about this, he has a need to diminish the accomplishments of Obama
“You mean to tell me that they can still stab each other with knives? Yeah, you’re telling me that Obama gets credit for Syria when he hasn’t stopped the fact that someone can have a sharp piece of metal jammed into their body, tearing flesh, and making all the gooey parts leak out? That’s better than a little gas?”
By any objective standard, Obama has helped tremendously to lessen the horrors of the war in Syria, a war that we should rightly have little part in. That he was able to do this in secret with an Syrian ally and a Congress bent on erasing his every gain shows what a great diplomat he is. Unfortunately, like the topic says, Obama’s successes are quiet while his failures are on 24/7 on Fox News. Just like the time he gave Americans the largest tax cut in history
Well then you are saying Obama was right to do what he did on Chemical Weapons and it worked out the best it ever could. Thanks.
Now hopefully January will bring about a peace agreement when the two sides meet face to face… Killing civilians with barrel bombs just makes Assad and Putin look worse despite their agreement to give up the chemical weapons.
J.Mace wrote, "*Had the deal that Russia proposed not been accepted, and Obama went on his bombing spree, he would have almost certainly had to agree to give significant aid to the rebels going forward. *.
I’m just wondering where its written that Russia proposed the deal. Obama had been trying to get Putin to rid the war zone of CW for months before Kerry put the requirement for Assad to avert air strikes out for Putin to accept.