Obama is ready to take unilateral actions if Syria uses chemical weapons while Putin insists on peaceful settlement without outside interference

WASHINGTON: -- US President Barack Obama warned Syria for unilateral US action in response to the alleged Syrian use of chemical weapons, if the country crosses of what Obama had described as a “red line.” He also insisted that it was important to get more specific details about alleged chemical attacks.

"Our militaries are constantly sharing information. We have seen evidence of the use of chemical weapons inside Syria. Those chemical weapons inside of Syria also threaten our security over the long term as well as [that of] our allies and friends and neighbours," US President Barack Obama said after meeting Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

“The use of chemical weapons are something that the civilized world has recognized should be out of bounds," highlighted Obama, adding that he and Erdogan "both agree [syrian President Bashar] Assad has to go."

Although the USA and Turkey share their views on the situation in Syria, and despite Erdogan's wish to have the US to take a stronger stance on Syria, Washington is cautious with its statements, as it appears that the US hopes are pinned on an upcoming peace conference, jointly organized by Russia.

Full story: http://english.ruvr.ru/news/2013_05_17/Obama-is-ready-to-take-unilateral-actions-if-Syria-uses-chemical-weapons-while-Putin-insists-on-peaceful-settlement-without-outside-interference-268/

-- THE VOICE OF RUSSIA 2013-05-17

I guess this wonderful source Voice of Russia cited so frequently here was unaware that Putin, who they say wants peace, just sent Assad a bunch of extremely high tech missiles. These are a threat to both Israel and to US Naval ships. This actually could really escalate issues in Syria.

Isn't citing stories from Voice of Russia about like citing stories from government controlled Chinese newspapers.

So the writing is on the wall as long as Obama follows through on the threat. Mossad agents go into Syria, fire off some chemical shells into a city, Syria receives a severe bruising from Uncle Sam ....Mission complete.

Mossad has no interest in seeing the rebels win as they are full of radical Islamists these days that are enemies of both Israel and the USA. Obama is not likely to help them unless Assad uses chemical weapons against large numbers of civilians in which case all bets are off.

Yawn, old news and already out of date. It has been reported in the media for the last two weeks that Syria has already crossed the "red line". The US State Dept argues that it was questionable just who used the chemical weapons, so backed off any further action. The problem now is that any aid that America sends to rebels in Syria will wind up in the hands of Hezbollah / Al Qaeda and will get funneled to Palestine, where they will be used against Israel. Funny how that works, init? Obama is going to do nothing, nada, nyet, nunca, F'All. This is merely a watch the shiny object moment trotted out as a diversion to take the focus off of the triple-scandal which has befallen the White House in recent days.

. . . This is merely a watch the shiny object moment trotted out as a diversion to take the focus off of the triple-scandal which has befallen the White House in recent days.

Haha, so the voice of Russia is joining in those evil liberals diversionary tactics. Damn conspiracy and cover up. Good thing we have watch dogs like you keeping close tabs.

Mossad has no interest in seeing the rebels win as they are full of radical Islamists these days that are enemies of both Israel and the USA. Obama is not likely to help them unless Assad uses chemical weapons against large numbers of civilians in which case all bets are off.

If Assad falls, Iran and its proxy Hezbollah will step in very fast!

Yawn, old news and already out of date. It has been reported in the media for the last two weeks that Syria has already crossed the "red line". The US State Dept argues that it was questionable just who used the chemical weapons, so backed off any further action. The problem now is that any aid that America sends to rebels in Syria will wind up in the hands of Hezbollah / Al Qaeda and will get funneled to Palestine, where they will be used against Israel. Funny how that works, init? Obama is going to do nothing, nada, nyet, nunca, F'All. This is merely a watch the shiny object moment trotted out as a diversion to take the focus off of the triple-scandal which has befallen the White House in recent days.

As with the Iranian nuclear weapons program this is another of Obama's magically moving red lines. Better not to issue them at all than threaten without following up.

Yawn, old news and already out of date. It has been reported in the media for the last two weeks that Syria has already crossed the "red line". The US State Dept argues that it was questionable just who used the chemical weapons, so backed off any further action. The problem now is that any aid that America sends to rebels in Syria will wind up in the hands of Hezbollah / Al Qaeda and will get funneled to Palestine, where they will be used against Israel. Funny how that works, init? Obama is going to do nothing, nada, nyet, nunca, F'All. This is merely a watch the shiny object moment trotted out as a diversion to take the focus off of the triple-scandal which has befallen the White House in recent days.

As with the Iranian nuclear weapons program this is another of Obama's magically moving red lines. Better not to issue them at all than threaten without following up.

I do agree with this, but dang . . . What do you do? I guess one could hope that rhetoric and stern threats would keep either side from using weapons of mass of destruction. Perhaps the threat is better than no threat or tactic acquiescence. Then if they do, do you commit to an action that may potentially result in escalation that could get out fo hand just to save face?

This is simply an opportunity for Obama to act Presidential while his entire administration is reeling from the triple scandal emergency.

If he wouldn't take action in Benghazi, what makes you believe he will take action in Syria...on a much larger scale.

Obama won't do anything and Assad and all his friends know it.

Yawn, old news and already out of date. It has been reported in the media for the last two weeks that Syria has already crossed the "red line". The US State Dept argues that it was questionable just who used the chemical weapons, so backed off any further action. The problem now is that any aid that America sends to rebels in Syria will wind up in the hands of Hezbollah / Al Qaeda and will get funneled to Palestine, where they will be used against Israel. Funny how that works, init? Obama is going to do nothing, nada, nyet, nunca, F'All. This is merely a watch the shiny object moment trotted out as a diversion to take the focus off of the triple-scandal which has befallen the White House in recent days.

As with the Iranian nuclear weapons program this is another of Obama's magically moving red lines. Better not to issue them at all than threaten without following up.

I do agree with this, but dang . . . What do you do? I guess one could hope that rhetoric and stern threats would keep either side from using weapons of mass of destruction. Perhaps the threat is better than no threat or tactic acquiescence. Then if they do, do you commit to an action that may potentially result in escalation that could get out fo hand just to save face?

Oh c'mon. This is Obama's "Wag The Dog" moment. His Grenada. "Find me some dark skinned people to kill and get find'em fast".

I would suggest that folks remember. Obama parked a Nimitz-class carrier group off the shores of Libya and took out Gaddafi recently. Personally I don't see any benefit in that action at all because as others have mentioned this is Muslim on Muslim and the winner still supports terrorists.

But it's an action that shows Obama is capable of it, so I wouldn't take it lightly.

I don't like Obama. Never did. I don't like the idea of taking out Syria's leaders only to see even more chaos. But facts are facts.

Mossad has no interest in seeing the rebels win as they are full of radical Islamists these days that are enemies of both Israel and the USA. Obama is not likely to help them unless Assad uses chemical weapons against large numbers of civilians in which case all bets are off.

If Assad falls, Iran and its proxy Hezbollah will step in very fast!

Not as fast as the Sunni countries backing the Sunni majority - and their allies.

It's just a natural progression to America's handover of Iraq to Iran. When the music stops....... watch Kurdistan.

So the writing is on the wall as long as Obama follows through on the threat. Mossad agents go into Syria, fire off some chemical shells into a city, Syria receives a severe bruising from Uncle Sam ....Mission complete.

more devious stuff already happened in these countries.

replace the Mossad by "extremist elements of the muslim brotherhood" in your scenario, and this could well happen.

I would suggest that folks remember. Obama parked a Nimitz-class carrier group off the shores of Libya and took out Gaddafi recently. Personally I don't see any benefit in that action at all because as others have mentioned this is Muslim on Muslim and the winner still supports terrorists.

But it's an action that shows Obama is capable of it, so I wouldn't take it lightly.

I don't like Obama. Never did. I don't like the idea of taking out Syria's leaders only to see even more chaos. But facts are facts.

I'm sorry but in recent history your country does not have an exemplary record in accurately assessing the outcome of any conflict or indeed winning any conflict. The biggest mistake America or its ally could make right now is keep taking for granted China or Russia would not bother about getting involved.

I would suggest that folks remember. Obama parked a Nimitz-class carrier group off the shores of Libya and took out Gaddafi recently. Personally I don't see any benefit in that action at all because as others have mentioned this is Muslim on Muslim and the winner still supports terrorists.

But it's an action that shows Obama is capable of it, so I wouldn't take it lightly.

I don't like Obama. Never did. I don't like the idea of taking out Syria's leaders only to see even more chaos. But facts are facts.

The very large difference is Obama was not in the lead on the Libyan situation. That was led by France and NATO.

Obama is the one that drew the so called "red line" in the sand on Syria. He has to accept full responsibility on this one if it goes pear shaped.

He isn't adept at accepting responsibility..

I would suggest that folks remember. Obama parked a Nimitz-class carrier group off the shores of Libya and took out Gaddafi recently. Personally I don't see any benefit in that action at all because as others have mentioned this is Muslim on Muslim and the winner still supports terrorists.

But it's an action that shows Obama is capable of it, so I wouldn't take it lightly.

I don't like Obama. Never did. I don't like the idea of taking out Syria's leaders only to see even more chaos. But facts are facts.

The very large difference is Obama was not in the lead on the Libyan situation. That was led by France and NATO.

Obama is the one that drew the so called "red line" in the sand on Syria. He has to accept full responsibility on this one if it goes pear shaped.

He isn't adept at accepting responsibility..

Better to have said nothing and left his options open, than to create a rod for his own back.

I have to wonder what audience his comments were aimed at, domestic or international?

OBAMA is doing what he is bast at..............Talking ! he is just trying to look as though he really cares, there have already been chemicals used here. So "come off the grass" Obama and stop blabbing crap !

OBAMA is doing what he is bast at..............Talking ! he is just trying to look as though he really cares, there have already been chemicals used here. So "come off the grass" Obama and stop blabbing crap !

Most people don't seem to remember that America has made a serious miscalculation in Syria previously with Assad Sr. Not doing anything is the correct strategy because there are no good outcomes.

As with the Iranian nuclear weapons program this is another of Obama's magically moving red lines. Better not to issue them at all than threaten without following up.

Yep when the red line was crossed barry waffled. So they all know he is just a windbag. Our guy is about as hard as a marshmallow.

Another famous politician from Illinois gave some advice Obama should heed.

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.'

A. Lincoln

I guess this wonderful source Voice of Russia cited so frequently here was unaware that Putin, who they say wants peace, just sent Assad a bunch of extremely high tech missiles. These are a threat to both Israel and to US Naval ships. This actually could really escalate issues in Syria.

Isn't citing stories from Voice of Russia about like citing stories from government controlled Chinese newspapers.

or Fox News

When will the west learn? Stay out of it. Next thing you know, the weapons of the victors will be turned on us.

OBAMA is doing what he is bast at..............Talking ! he is just trying to look as though he really cares, there have already been chemicals used here. So "come off the grass" Obama and stop blabbing crap !

Most people don't seem to remember that America has made a serious miscalculation in Syria previously with Assad Sr. Not doing anything is the correct strategy because there are no good outcomes.

Syria always was in the arms of the Soviet Union and continues to be in the grasp of Russia. That was always the choice Syria made.

Nothing during the Cold War was going to change that, from presidents Truman to Bush the father, nothing did or could change the fact and reality. One can't blame the United States for the decisions of a family dynasty, the Syrian Baath Socialist Party or its predecessors.

The present civil war is a no-win for everyone and can only become radically more messy. You just can't pin Syria past or present on the United States. Where anyway are the Europeans in the matter of weapons of mass death and destruction? (They'd been at such things for 2000 years, so they should know a lot about all this, given the 20th century especially.)

As for the bomb, the bomb ended World War II with emphatic finality. An invasion of Japan would have cost a million lives on all sides, put the U.S. in a direct confrontation with also invading Soviet forces at the same time the WW2 "allies" were seeing the Soviets grab eastern Europe and set up the Cold War.

Ten to 15% of Americans watch Fox News, the Neilson surveys consistently show. One hundred percent of the PRChinese sheeple watch Central China Television aka: CCTV (closed circuit tv) as in closed to access by global networks from off the mainland.

So the writing is on the wall as long as Obama follows through on the threat. Mossad agents go into Syria, fire off some chemical shells into a city, Syria receives a severe bruising from Uncle Sam ....Mission complete.

Actually, CIA backed Al Qaeda is already there. How is it we bomb them in Pakistan and then aid them in Syria? Actually, we helped them get there. Hardly, rebels actually though some are actually Syrian. Man of them have come to Syria from several other countries.

Yawn, old news and already out of date. It has been reported in the media for the last two weeks that Syria has already crossed the "red line". The US State Dept argues that it was questionable just who used the chemical weapons, so backed off any further action. The problem now is that any aid that America sends to rebels in Syria will wind up in the hands of Hezbollah / Al Qaeda and will get funneled to Palestine, where they will be used against Israel. Funny how that works, init? Obama is going to do nothing, nada, nyet, nunca, F'All. This is merely a watch the shiny object moment trotted out as a diversion to take the focus off of the triple-scandal which has befallen the White House in recent days.

As with the Iranian nuclear weapons program this is another of Obama's magically moving red lines. Better not to issue them at all than threaten without following up.

I do agree with this, but dang . . . What do you do? I guess one could hope that rhetoric and stern threats would keep either side from using weapons of mass of destruction. Perhaps the threat is better than no threat or tactic acquiescence. Then if they do, do you commit to an action that may potentially result in escalation that could get out fo hand just to save face?

Interesting...when was the last use of weapons of mass destruction.....Hiroshima comes to mind...........

That was at least during a time of declared war.

I guess this wonderful source Voice of Russia cited so frequently here was unaware that Putin, who they say wants peace, just sent Assad a bunch of extremely high tech missiles. These are a threat to both Israel and to US Naval ships. This actually could really escalate issues in Syria.

Isn't citing stories from Voice of Russia about like citing stories from government controlled Chinese newspapers.

or Fox News

All news sources should be properly scrutinized. They all have agendas. They all omit stories and facts. Best to read as many different ones as you can and find the truth in between.

I would suggest that folks remember. Obama parked a Nimitz-class carrier group off the shores of Libya and took out Gaddafi recently. Personally I don't see any benefit in that action at all because as others have mentioned this is Muslim on Muslim and the winner still supports terrorists.

But it's an action that shows Obama is capable of it, so I wouldn't take it lightly.

I don't like Obama. Never did. I don't like the idea of taking out Syria's leaders only to see even more chaos. But facts are facts.

The very large difference is Obama was not in the lead on the Libyan situation. That was led by France and NATO.

Obama is the one that drew the so called "red line" in the sand on Syria. He has to accept full responsibility on this one if it goes pear shaped.

He isn't adept at accepting responsibility..

And who leads NATO? Make no mistake that the USA was behind it among others. We simply had to have the appearance of not being the lead so that when the next leader was "elected" that it wouldn't appear to be an American puppet.

I would suggest that folks remember. Obama parked a Nimitz-class carrier group off the shores of Libya and took out Gaddafi recently. Personally I don't see any benefit in that action at all because as others have mentioned this is Muslim on Muslim and the winner still supports terrorists.

But it's an action that shows Obama is capable of it, so I wouldn't take it lightly.

I don't like Obama. Never did. I don't like the idea of taking out Syria's leaders only to see even more chaos. But facts are facts.

I'm sorry but in recent history your country does not have an exemplary record in accurately assessing the outcome of any conflict or indeed winning any conflict. The biggest mistake America or its ally could make right now is keep taking for granted China or Russia would not bother about getting involved.

I think that some are counting on them getting involved. When the next financial crisis hits it will be far worse than in 2008. It should have happened then, but the powers that be decided to kick the can down the road a little further. Good thing only from the standpoint that it gave more of us time to prepare. However, long term it is going to make matters far worse.

Anyway, once this next crisis hits (the derivative bubble will pop), and then hell is going to break loose. The Euro will suffer terribly, but the dollar will suffer the most. All the countries who have been printing money will then have to stop, and there will be a big reset. Trillions in wealth will be destroyed in stock markets etc. In order to distract the public from who caused it we'll need another world war. We have precedence for this.

why does the human race watches other Humans kill other Humans, all because of politics, how long do we have to watch defenseless children be killed, and if we act its called intervention.