Syria moving chemical weapons

| December 3, 2012

Fox News reports that the Syrian government has started moving it’s chemical weapons – you know, the chemical weapons that appeared in Syria out of thin air in 2003.

One senior U.S. official told Fox News “there are concerns about possible preparations for use” of the weapons, though “we don’t know yet if they plan to use them.”

The official added, “There are troubling signs of late.”


[White House Press Secretary Jay] Carney said using or proliferating those weapons “would cross a red line for the United States.”

“They will be held accountable by the United States and the international community if they use chemical weapons or fail to meet their obligation to secure them.”

Carney would not say whether the movement of weapons by itself could cross the so-called red line.

Clinton, in Prague for meetings with Czech officials, also reiterated President Obama’s declaration that Syrian action on chemical weapons was a “red line” for the United States that would prompt action.

I’m pretty sure that those strongly worded statements aren’t going to convince the Syrians to not use the weapons if they’ve already made up their minds. I guess this is one thing he can’t use the drones to handle the problem.

So, what are they going to do? Oh, yeah, that’s right, they said last month that they’d need 75,000 troops to secure those weapons. So, do you guys have your bags packed for the next time you’re going to have to make Obama look good?

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War

Comments (28)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. 2BlueStars says:

    It makes me ill thinking about it.

  2. Ex-PH2 says:

    Hold them accountable?

    So what are they going to do? Use harsh words on them?

    Oh, that’s seriously effective. I can see it now: some 17YO jihadist going home to his mommy and complaining bitterly “They use harsh words! Did you ever?!?!?! They’re SO mean!!!”

    Maybe the sarcasm volume will be ramped up a little bit.

  3. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    The RED line? Is that the vertical margin line on notebook paper? Is that a railroad? What the heck does that mean, a red line?

  4. streetsweeper says:

    So, these must be the MWD’s that Hussein “didn’t” have in his possession before Bush “lied”. Correct?

  5. Twist says:

    @4, All the WMDs could have “made in Iraq” stamped on them and the Liberals will still cry that Bush “lied” us into Iraq.

  6. Old Trooper says:

    Now this shit is getting real and we have a metrosexual momma’s boy that can’t answer the phone when it rings at 3 am. How long is the rest of the civilized world going to stand by and let another genocide happen? Wait, don’t answer that, we’ve seen them do it time after time.

  7. CWO5USMC says:

    Oh come on, we all know the “red line” they are talking about is just more “harly worded rebukes”…..

    I would retire but I don’t want individuals from the current administration signing my paperwork…..just my selfish view.

    Hang on tight folks, it’s gonna be a rough ride.

    Whiskey Five Tango, Out.

  8. CWO5USMC says:

    Whoops…”harshly worded rebukes”….

    damn eyesight….

  9. CI says:

    “…….you know, the chemical weapons that appeared in Syria out of thin air in 2003.”

    Or more likely the weaponry resulting from a chemical weapons program that dates back to the early 1980’s.

  10. DaveO says:

    #9 CI: that will be Obama’s answer.

    As for the WMD themselves: if Assad does not use them, he and his family will be hung from lamp posts in the not too distant future.

    If Assad does use them, either he still hangs but uses up stocks that will used against Israel and the US of A; or, more likely, he gets a sweet dacha on the Crimea, uses a few WMD, and the rest get sold to the Islamists in exchange for his freedom.

  11. Spade says:


    Well, it’s the truth. Syria has had the capacity to make their own CWs for a long damn time now.

    Sure, Iraq probably moved some there, but that doesn’t mean Syria didn’t have a huge stockpile themselves.

  12. PALADIN says:

    How in the F%^k are they gonna secure those weapons when they don’t have the intestinal fortitude to send a rescue force when our ambassador is under attack in Libya ?
    Pure friggin B.S. ! !
    Red Line my ass, we have a girly boy for president , and a ruglicker for SecState.
    Both are Liberals and neither has the guts to SEE ANYTHING THROUGH.
    Sides i don’t give a fiddlers shit what happens in Syria, if muslimes wanna kill each other, all the power in the world to em ! They ain’t worth the life of any of our people ..period ! or the cost in terms of money.
    But these weapons need to be secured, so the dirtballs don’t get their hands on em.
    Probably too late already.

  13. Roger in Republic says:

    I say Locate and Nuculate. No warning, no strongly worded letter, no worries about how the piss ant belly achers will wail and moan, and no apologies. Show some guts and put these savages to sleep.

  14. Nik says:

    I still think this is a matter not best handled by soldiers, Marines, or any other flavor of groundpounders. Let the CIA do their job, ie find the WMDs. They find them, they lase the target, someone pushes a button and target goes away. Doesn’t even have to be our missiles.

  15. FltMedic says:

    We are kinda not talking about the elephant in the room. Israel sure as hell won’t let WMDs get in the hands of the Jihadists if they can avoid it.

    I can see Netenyaho taking action, not our limp wristed CIC.

  16. OH SHIT! That’s where the WMDs from Iraq went….and when we invade this shitland, they won’t be there either. We’ll spend billions of dollars, have no clear plan or idea and go in to save the fucking world …again.

    ….and there will be nothing there…again.
    For those that don’t study history, they’re doomed to repeat it…

  17. DetCord says:

    Syria has had a active CBRN program since the late 70’s, specifically chemical weapons. Not saying that some of Iraq’s weapons didn’t end up there, simply that the Syrians never needed their help in obtaining them.

  18. UpNorth says:

    @#17. No, the Syrians didn’t need Iraq’s help, but I’m pretty sure they didn’t turn down the opportunity to expand their arsenal. Much like Iran didn’t turn the Iraqi AF back when a lot of their combat power flew there.

  19. Stacy0311 says:

    I really hope we don’t have to go into Syria. I am sick and tired of seeing all variations of red, green, white and black flags. THAT’S why muslims are always pissedd off; they all have to use the same 4 colors for their national flags!

  20. Ben says:

    So, what is your source that these weapons appeared out of thin air in 2003? I’ve always suspected that the WMD were moved, but what’s the source for that?

    I also thought that Syria probably had some of their own, independently of anything Iraq may have given them.

  21. Tom6400 says:

    I have already been to Syria (by accident, of course). Looked a lot like Iraq (guess that’s how we ended up there).

  22. DaveO says:

    The question of how Syria came by its WMD is a rope-a-dope. The question is whether Assad will use them. The answer is yes – qualified by ‘if he believes he will win decisively.’ If Assad believes he will lose, he will make deals using the WMD as a bargaining chip.

    What the US does, or does not do, is only relevant in preventing Israel’s sworn, non-state enemies from getting WMD. All else is chaff

  23. NHSparky says:

    OT @ 6–How long is the rest of the civilized world going to stand by and let another genocide happen? Wait, don’t answer that, we’ve seen them do it time after time.

    As long as they’re used against Israel or even the US, they don’t give a shit.

  24. Ex-PH2 says:

    The Big Cheese has just now (12:15PM CST news) issued a stern warning to Syria about using chemical weapons:

    “The world is watching. This will be considered totally unacceptable.”

    This is obviously far more effective than saying “Listen, shitface, our bombs are a helluva a lot bigger than yourse. Do you think we WON’T use them? Don’t confuse restraint with pacifism.”

  25. Ex-PH2 says:

    And this follows my post above:

    Sorry, guys, but I do feel that this may become a dustup and we’ll be involved in it, willy-nilly.

  26. USMCE8Ret says:

    This may have little to do with the discussion here, but I think the YouTube link I’ve provided is the kind of response we actually expect/prefer from the CinC in regards to foreign policy:

  27. USMCE8Ret says:

    (…that is, if the CinC had the pair to say what really needs to be said…)

  28. Ex-PH2 says:

    This is breaking news tonight (12/5) at 10PM. I think it goes here:

    Not happy with this news, either.