Ed's Blog

"Some people know everything, but that's all they know."



A year ago, President Barack Obama said that if the Bashar al-Assad regime used chemical weapons in Syria, it would cross a red line that would result in “serious consequences.” Last week, Assad crossed that line again, killing hundreds and debilitating several thousand with a chemical attack on the outskirts of Damascus. Will President Obama impose serious consequences this time?  (Read the full column at EWRoss.com)


Filed under: National Security, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

9 Responses

  1. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Ed, how do you know Assad used chemical weapons? Don’t you think you should at least wait for the UN?

    By Federico Schiavio

  2. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Obama is all talk and only wants his own agenda. Race war; class warfare; climate change lies; his war against energy. He is truly a joke

    By Michael Talley

  3. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    …..’A year ago, President Barack Obama said that if the Bashar al-Assad regime used chemical weapons in Syria, it would cross a red line that would result in “serious consequences.”…..

    And if, in due course, it’s discovered that the ‘Opposition’ were responsible, what then ???

    By Tony Buckley

  4. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    For the US and its allies to enter into Syria militarily (especially without a clear reason (and the jury is still out on chemical weapons use by the regime) based on valid national interest) seems fool hardy not to mention dangerous when one considers that the US/Russia relationship is frosty at the moment and US entry will affect Russian interests and so have the possibility of igniting conflagration on an epic scale. Also Assad is not Saddam and arming the insurgents is akin to creating a Frankenstein like the US did with Al Qaeda last century (when there was a Berlin Wall and a Cold War). ” Washington ignored its ignominious record of giving refuge to and refusing extradition requests for Chechnyian terrorists, Russian oligarchical swindlers, as well as Cuban airline bombing terrorist Posada Carriles and Bolivian President Sanchez de Losada accused of murdering dozens of protesters, The White House response by snubbing Putin over the granting of temporary asylum to Snowden (to my mind foolishness on Russia’s part) and “threatening further reprisals and “dire consequences”. …put into questions a favorable asymmetrical diplomatic relation, resorting to cold War rhetoric and threats. ” Whilst I do not agree with everything James Petras says in this article about the need for the US to try harder in finding Diplomatic solutions before sending in the military, in relation to Syria, I think this is definitely the case. “Syria was a “co-operative adversary”, maintaining regional stability and a tolerant multi-ethno-religious state…Instead of continuing a policy of diplomatic pressure and tactical collaboration, Obama joined with an unholy alliance of Gulf State Islamic autocracies, ex-colonial European powers (especially France and England) ,Israel’s secret services (Mossad ) and Turkey Islamist President Erdogan in arming, financing, training and providing sanctuary to armed Islamic mercenaries led by Al Qaeda brigades. Syria was riven by conflict, the economy was destroyed, security was non-existent and millions of refugees fled to Iraq, Jordan, and Turkey and beyond. Thousands of Jihadists from afar journeyed to the neighboring countries, received arms, paychecks and terrorist training in pursuit of a “Taliban style” regime in Syria as a springboard to destabilizing pro-US client states in the region. Turkey’s and Egypt’s (under Morsi) intervention on behalf of the Islamic uprising provoked internal mass popular protest, weakening the US collaborator regimes. Obamas “all or nothing” attempt to establish a Syrian client regime via violence has produced a “no win” situations: either Assad retains power as a less co-operative adversary or the Islamic terrorists establish a regime that serves as a springboard for one, two, and many caliphates. In the midst of this negative scenario, through Russian mediation, Bashar Assad agreed to pursue negotiations with the opposition in Geneva. The Obama regime seized diplomatic failure from the mouth of a face-saving peaceful resolution: it failed to convince the terrorists and rejected the diplomatic option.” http://nsnbc.me/2013/08/25/the-obama-regimes-military-metaphysics-rejects-diplomatic-opportunit/

    By Alexander Athos

  5. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Well, that didn’t take very long…to deride Obama, I mean. It’s a somewhat interesting column but once again, it fails to deliver anything meaningful other than another opportunity to take a swipe at the Administration.

    The US does not have confirmation that chemical weapons have been used. I think its safe to say, they have been, but until we can present clear, hard evidence, there is nothing we can do. Although some GOP Senators are already calling for surgical military strikes in Syria? Really? Against whom? What if it turns out the chemical weapons were used by the rebels and not Assad? Besides, it would be huge mistake to take unilateral action.

    Mr Ross can make all the claims he wants and if he’s wrong, he simply says “oops”. And to an extent, I guess that’s journalistic privilege. However, if the Administration is wrong in their assessment of the situation in Syria, the stakes are a bit higher, wouldn’t you say? They are correct to tread softly and carefully.

    As for Mr. Ross, I wish that once in a while he would offer something constructive in the form of possible solutions rather than only opinionated condemnation of this Administration.

    By Danny Lesa

  6. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Danny I do agree at this point we should stay out of Syria. Our President had many opportunities to assist the original anti-Syrian forces two years ago. From what I can find out on this subject the anti-Syrian groups have been compromised by Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood (enemies of America) it would be a bad idea to give them weapons. Not to mention how we had given Russia two years to prepare for US military intervention, at this point I don’t believe Russia has any respect or fear of our President, it would be a very bad idea to have a military to military conflict with them with Obama as commanders in chief. My guess is Obama my throw some Tomahawks just to save face, you know that “Red line” comment issue. It’s too late now, we should let France handle it. Anyway we most likely will not actually conduct an attack without NATO’s approval backed the the UN……

    By Jeff Machtig

  7. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Obama should have never made the “red line’ comment in the first place, at least not in public….just another indication of Obama being in over his head. Syria is a difficult place to make good decisions about. The regime is horrendous and the counter-Assad forces are a difficult mix ranging from terrorists to people fighting for their freedom and democracy.

    By Stan VanderWerf

  8. Reposted from Disqus says:

    The Lebanon is a huge factor as well. The intervention of Hezbollah changed the whole equation, even if the quisling media prefers to turn a blind eye to that reality.

    Lamb Chop

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share

EWRoss on Twiter

RSS EWRoss.com RSS

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
%d bloggers like this: