It seems President Barrack O'Bombem is committed to this regardless of getting Congressional approval. Scary what it might bring to have extremist terrorist from Syria and Iraq openly working together. The new SyrIraq?
Below is from ABC news.
"Despite statements from both US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that a US-led strike on Syria would be a "limited and tailored" military attack, ABC News reported on Thursday that the strike planned by Obama's national security team is "significantly larger" than most have anticipated.
According to ABC News, in additional to a salvo of 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from four Navy destroyers stationed in the eastern Mediterranean, the US is also planning an aerial campaign that is expected to last two days
This campaign potentially includes an aerial bombardment of missiles and long range bombs from US-based B-2 stealth bombers that carry satellite-guided bombs, B-52 bombers, that can carry air-launched cruise missiles and Qatar-based B-1s that carry long-range, air-to-surface missiles, both ABC News and The New York Times reported.
"This military strike will do more damage to [Syrian President Bashar] Assad's forces in 48 hours than the Syrian rebels have done in two years," a national security official told ABC News."
The unintended consequences of a strike could be catastrophic. The Syrian have Russian built Sunburn missiles that have much greater range, speed, and accuracy than anything the US has and the Chinese have threatened to dump billions of US Treasuries which would spike interest rates.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Everyone agreed to ban chem weapons so when you decide to go against this international standard to kill innocent people you deserve to get bombed. Sad US has to play lone enforcer again but noone else has the guts.
Actually, Syria never signed the chemical weapons ban so no, not everyone agreed to ban chemical weapons.
I find it to be more than a little rich that the US has thousands of nuclear warheads and thinks it has the moral authority to object to someone using weapons that are less damaging than those nuclear warheads.
Don't get me wrong. I think chemical weapons should be banned and I think nuclear weapons should be banned. I just think the US (and a large part of the world in the same boat; i.e., Britain, France, Israel, etc.) are huge hypocrites when it comes to weapons of mass destruction.
Can we be certain that it was Assad that used the weapons or the rebels. There are numerous videos out there with the rebels claiming responsibility that you will not see in the main stream press.
Hard for me to give credibility to an administration that blamed Bengazi on an obscure U tube video and still refuses to even let the 20 30 personal on site testify before congress.
Then you ask, which devil is worse, al qaeda rebels that would use the chemical weapons on Israel or the USA when we put them in power or Assad who "may have" used them on his own people.