VOA: US Mulls 'Coordinated' Response to Syria Gas Attack
The United States on Tuesday consulted with allies in preparation for possible expanded military action in Syria following the latest suspected deadly chemical weapons attack on a Syrian rebel-held village.
"We are looking for a coordinated response, whatever that response might be," said State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert about possible U.S. military action in Syria.
President Donald Trump has warned those responsible will pay a "big price" for Saturday's attack in eastern Ghouta that killed at least 40 people. Over the past day, Trump has talked repeatedly with his British and French counterparts about a possible response to the attack.
Read more ....
WNU editor: It is going to take a few days for everyone's assets to be in placed to conduct a joint response.
Update: The French President is probably correct .... Macron says US, UK & France to decide on ‘response’ to alleged Syria chem attack in coming days (RT).
More News On Reports That A Multinational And Coordinated Military Response To Last Week's Syrian Gas Attack Is Being Planned
US, France and Britain agree to respond to Syrian gas attack -- The Guardian
Western leaders mull joint response against Syrian government after alleged chemical attack -- ABC News
Emmanuel Macron broaches possible French airstrikes on Syria -- DW
Syria 'chemical attack': Allies agree need for response -- BBC
U.S., Allies Weighing a More Severe Response to Syria's Suspected Chemical Weapons Attack -- Time
5 comments:
Fusion,
One thing that I think would be really helpful is to disband NATO. I noticed NATO was used for the misguided military operation against Lybia. Each nation was able to hide behind NATO.
If each nation had to individually get the approval of the citizens of their countries as well as get the elected officials of their countries to sign off on this such things would be far less likely to happen. If a leader were to show up who would suggest such things and actually might be able to change it, that leader would be a huge threat to the powers that be. They might even become desparate to destroy such a person.
Nato has served peace well. Abandoning nato would only embolden your home country, Russia. So please stop this nonsense, comrade. We know what's good for us, and you should stick to what's good for you, like invading Ukraine, Georgia and bombing kids in Syria. You do a great job at that - no denying. Nato does a good job at getting rid of dictators who think like you do.
anon
most of us at this site know that "Poster" is Russian troll...every comment is pro russia and against US doing anything
".every comment is pro russia and against US doing anything"
Not true.
"NATO has served peace well." It hasn't since the end of Cold War 1. Actually the expansion of NATO to Russia's borders is likely a violation of the agreements that ended Cold War 1. Having NATO serve in its current capacity only raises tensions and undermines American national security.
"We know what's good for us...." Assuming you are not American using NATO which is primarily America as your pawn seems to be your goal and perhaps it does work well for you. It isn't working well for America and, in its current form, needs be abandoned.
Ukraine? Georgia? Those chump governments are unworthy of American support. After endless "color revolutions" hostile Russian interests, blowback was bound to be expected. The US and the "west" may not have been behind them, however, failure to condemn them and to even appearing to actively support them was/is definitely bad optics. As I stated at the time, supporting the coup in Ukraine was arguably the dumbest move ever made by a major power.
"...bombing kids in Syria." Our "allies" do a fine job of that. These are mish mash of al Qaeda, ISIS, and their sympathizers. The only ones possibly worthy of support might be the Kurds. With that said the US can support liberty everywhere but it can only guarantee its own. The Kurds have been the beneficiaries of some very slick marketing campaigns over the years designed to lure Americans to their cause. Supporting a Kurdish state would be extremely costly with minimal benefits and would pit us against a number of major powers.
"...getting rid of dictators who think like you do." As stated, America can only guarantee its own liberty. Do unwarranted foreign interventions help or hinder American and "western" liberty? Do fruitless operations around the world that neither advance but actually run contrary to American interests advance American and "western" liberty or do they undermine it? I would say they undermine liberty as they lead to increased tensions and blowback is inevitable. They are not good for liberty in the targeted countries either as they drive people into the arms of dictators promising to protect them.
The instincts of POTUS to get us out of Syria are spot on. Unfortunately they seem to have been derailed over a so called "chemical attack." Did it even happen? If so, how can we possibly have investigated it to know who is behind it? As has been pointed out the Syrian government had no incentive, I'd suggest consider the possibility we are being manipulated by unscrupulous elements.
Now finally those accusing me of being a "troll" generally have no good arguments to make for their positions. Those who act based upon ideology seldom do have good arguments. When they are exposed, they resort to insults and name calling. Hence, "Russian troll, Russian troll!"
Post a Comment