U.S. considers no-fly zone in Syria


The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2013.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

No fly-zone a familiar term? is Saddam Hussein reborn? worse yet to come.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Sounds like a lot of BS and Syria has NO OIL!! So the USA getting involved there, not likely IMHO.

0 ( +1 / -2 )

The U.S.A. needs to KEEP OUT of conflicts anywhere in the world.

Particularly in the Middle East.

For one thing, it doesn't help, it just makes things 100 times worse.

And for another thing, it has plenty to fix at home.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Isn't China considering a no-fly zone in Syria?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Bertie, I couldn't agree more. These affairs are a LOCAL issue. It is not the responsibility of the US to play mommy. All they are going to do is get more people pissed off at them then surprise surprise more terrorist attacks...

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The commander of Syria’s main rebel fighting force urged Western allies to supply anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles and to create a no-fly zone, saying if properly armed he could defeat Assad’s army within six months.

I really don't know about the gas thing. It seems like if Assad hadn't used it before, then using it when he has more support would be insane. I can't understand his motivation, if it really happened. It sounds more like the act of a few crazy people on one side or the other.

Because we really don't know who all the rebels are, arming them, and having all those weapons out there in the hands of who knows who, would be really stupid. I hope they don't do this, and really, I'd prefer they stayed out of it completely, but it's true that the help of Hezbollah has tipped the balance. They can't let Hezbollah get a hold of chemical weapons.

It's a difficult situation.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Daniel Sullivan,

All they are going to do is get more people pissed off at them then surprise surprise more terrorist attacks...

Couldn't agree more.

The "terrorist" attacks, the anti-American sentiment in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, in fact, most of the Middle East stems from a reaction to American actions rather than terrorism.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Don't get involved. If 200,000 die without intervention, the world will shrug. Get involved in any way and you'll be blamed for them all.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Circumventing the UN to do this unilaterally (and with a certain Russian veto they will have to) the US will only further undermine international law, as they did in Iraq. Then they will claim that they are compelled to act (to alleviate human suffering blah blah blah) because of the "restrictions" on what the UN are able to do. As justification for illegal intervention. Sketchy evidence of limited chemical weapons use, DOES NOT GIVE THE US ANY RIGHT TO BECOME INVOLVED, without the full consent of the security council. If Russia wants to block it, that sucks for the US, but it IS THE WAY IT HAS TO BE until a better system can be implemented. Iraq was a hugely dangerous precedent and one which gives self-vindification to the US that they can override the UN with impunity, deciding for themselves what is or is not in fact "legal." It is a cultural arrogance backed by political and financial clout, shouting bloody murder from the mountaintops when countries like Iran and North Korea are in violation of UN resolutions but merely dismissing the UN framework when it suits them. Don't forget that the United States has the power and uses the power of its own veto on the Secutity Council too. Whereas the system is far from perfect the veto provides a best-we-have system of checks and balances to maintain lawfulness-and in this case the key legal concern is the unsolicited involvement in a countries internal affairs. Further undermining the authority of the UN will only serve to diminish respect for the institution and legitimise the big fat middle finger which the likes of North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya and the US increasingly like to brandish at it. What happens then when Russia or China decide to get involved in internal national conflicts without UN backing? The system needs reform, yes, but its partial or God forbid complete breakdown would spell DISASTER and a huge backwards step for all of HUMANITY. The US has three options: 1) Get the Russians (and Chinese) onside. Unfortuately this means there has to be something in it for them. It's easy to criticize their stance but they're not going to budge when their huge financial investments in Syria (yes including those massive defence contracts) are going to be compromised. It's not oil they're after but they are (rightly) hugely sceptical of American motives, the increasing Americanization of the region, and tipping of the balance of sheres of influence. The Americans need to give them certain assurances and its dirty stuff, but that is politics. And if that doesn't work 2) Take leadership in reform of the UN and in particular of the Security Council. That won't happen because with their holier-than-thou attitude they are NOT going to give up their own veto on the Council. 3) Offer all the support they can which is legitimate under international law and given explicit legitimitization by the international community. This does not extend to deciding for themself what is and is not acceptable. It must still be sanctioned by the UN and including the support of Russia and China. Unilateral no-fly zones do not meet this criteria.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The US and her Nato allies will send ground troops to intervene the Syrian civil war at the end! This is a step-by-step procedure to step in another quagmire!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Bang the war-drum slowly. The chickenhawks have been itching to get invloved in yet another conflict. MYOB. Enough "seeking monsters to destroy."

John Quincy Adams :" America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Deputy National Security Adviser Rhodes said Washington now believed 100-150 people had been killed by government poison gas attacks on rebels. “The president ... has made it clear that the use of chemical weapons or transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups is a red line,” he said. “He has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has.”

35-year-old (Ben) Rhodes has been a speechwriter for Obama since 2007 and now enjoys the role of deputy national security adviser for strategic communication. He created the infamous term “kinetic military action” to describe the bombardment of Libya which allowed Obama to skirt around the constitutional question of having to declare war. Rhodes’ expertise revolves around manufacturing narratives. “He earned a master’s degree in fiction-writing from New York University just a few years ago,” writes Ed Lansky. “He did not have a degree in government, diplomacy, national security; nor has he served in the CIA, or the military. He was toiling away not that long ago on a novel called ‘The Oasis of Love” about a mega church in Houston, a dog track, and a failed romance.” As Stephen Hayes documents in a lengthy Weekly Standard piece, Rhodes was instrumental in altering CIA talking points to delete references to Islamic terrorists being involved in the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, setting the foundation for the Obama administration’s cover-up of the incident by claiming the siege was a demonstration against an anti-Muslim film. This was an attempt to hide the fact that the White House had supported Al-Qaeda terrorists in the overthrow of Gaddafi, just as they are now doing in Syria. Rhodes can also count on the support of the US corporate media in selling fairytales about chemical weapons, since his brother David is the president of CBS News.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

It will be like second Vietnam. Too many deaths with no meaning. The better things is to not give weapons to any side.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

So no Al Qaeda in the rebels there in Syria??

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So no Al Qaeda in the rebels there in Syria??

I'm sure hearing a lot of stories that say they are there. I'm not there, so I really don't know, but...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

" It will be like second Vietnam." No, Iraq has that distinction. Then there's been Afghanistan, Libya, Mali, etc.

0 ( +2 / -2 )


"It will be like second Vietnam." No, Iraq has that distinction. Then there's been Afghanistan, Libya, Mali, etc.

And they have the nerve to bleat about Chinese military aggression!

And all the while the U.S.A. is going bankrupt, China is laughing all the way to the bank!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Sounds like a lot of BS and Syria has NO OIL!! So the USA getting involved there, not likely IMHO.

There is an important pipeline going through Syria. It competes against a pipeline that goes through "Israel". That is a (the?) major reason why the US is involved.

Here, Dr. Ron Paul comments on the situation in Syria: <>

Things would have been so much better for the US, and the world, if he was president.

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

Bill Clinton is now siding with McCain asking for immediate action by US. They think it is a mistake for US and Allied not get tougher, I guess everything is moving forward very swiftly against Syria now. Oh dear....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is an important pipeline going through Syria. It competes against a pipeline that goes through "Israel". That is a (the?) major reason why the US is involved. (Pipelines in Israel) (mostly for Russian oil transfer to Asia) Natural gas pipeline comes from Egypt.–Haifa_oil_pipeline (closed 1948)

< > (explains it best)

Syria’s proven oil reserves, amounting to 2.5 billion barrels, are greater than those of all neighboring countries except Iraq. The “war of pipelines” has begun: during its invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States destroyed the Kirkuk-Banias pipeline carrying Iraqi oil to Syria. It remained in use, however, between Ain Zalah and Suweidiva. Subsequently, in defiance of the prohibitions of Washington, Damascus and Baghdad have undertaken the project for two pipelines and a gas pipeline through Syria, connecting Iraqi fields to the Mediterranean and then to international markets. Even more dangerous for Western interests is the agreement signed in May 2011 between Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran: it involves the construction of a gas pipeline through Iraq, which will transport Iranian natural gas to Syria and from there to foreign markets.

-- plus you have natural gas off the coast of Israel and Lebanon that they would like to get up to Turkey (main pipeline to Europe)

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites