The Syrian gas attack

If you can say, one thing about the Right, is that they are always consistent in their views.

A while back there was massive "outrage", because Obama was launching drone strikes, against terrorist suspects, in countries we have no direct beef with.

Now they are outraged, because Obama won't launch indiscriminate missile strikes, against a country, that frankly, we really don't have any direct beef with.

Assad said the Military did not lauch gas rockets. They wouldn't lie, right,

Maybe we should start another war, so we can complain about it later.

It was one of those awful executive orders that put the prohibition against assassinying foreign leaders into effect. It's been reinstated by every president since, including Reagan and both Bushes. Therefor it has the effect of law when it comes to anyone who falls under the federal purview. This would include our clandestine services and the military. I remember much outcry when a foriegn jet was denied flyover priviledges in Europe at our request but indiscriminately killing a foreign leader is OK?

The outrage is with Obama making threats and then not following through. Impotent rage........



I'm more in the Ron Paul camp on foreign policy but I see weakness in empty threats......

Sent from my C811 4G using Tapatalk 2

__________________
There is only one certain barrier to truth, the conviction that you already have it- Unknown

I think you need to look up the definition of indiscriminately......


Sent from my C811 4G using Tapatalk 2

__________________
There is only one certain barrier to truth, the conviction that you already have it- Unknown

I'm aware of the definition. Are we at war with Syria? Have we been given any international authority to intervene? After all, wasn't part of the rationałe for the Iraq invasion that we had continuing UN authorization from Iraq 1? Maybe we can lob a few missiles at the Egyptian military leadership next. They're killing their own citizens, too. Anybody else we don't like?

Where in our constitution does it say anything about international authority? Another case of liberal weakness. We are a sovereign nation. I personally don't support any intervention but to use the word indiscriminately is asinine. :banghead:

Sent from my C811 4G using Tapatalk 2

__________________
There is only one certain barrier to truth, the conviction that you already have it- Unknown

So if I agree to withdraw the offending word would you care to tell me what impending threat to the United States Assad poses that justifies our taking unilateral action to assassinate him? I've repeatadly heard from both sides that we shouldn't be the world's policeman. But I guess being judge, jury and executioner is all good.

I like to use as few words as necessary so here goes.....

YES.


POISON GAS

Now, before you attempt to insult me by calling me something like.....a Republican, which I'm not, in order to make a comparison about Bush and Saddam, I'll remind you of two things.

1) We have videotape evidence in the public domain this time, NOT falsified or exaggerated CIA stuff.

2) Sadam actually DID use poison gas on the Kurds and the evidence was seen all over the world when Daddy Bush was president.
But at that time we also sat back, did the wrong thing, the wrong way and paid heavily for it.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Most times i can follow you and agree a lot . But tell me again why we cared what Husane did to those he precived as enemies.

__________________
Check it Out O added another Plank With O care
http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist...to-Planks.html

I'll ask again. What is the imminent threat to the US? Has Assad threatened to use this poison gas against us here or our troops stationed overseas? What other perceived threats around the world should we preemptively respond to by killing the leaders of sovereign countries. Had you advocated for striking at weapons stores and at weapons which launch the poison gas I'd have more agreement. I can't agree with assassination of a leader we are not involved in conflict with.

So, you are willing to start a war, over a "threat" that in reality, was just a sound bite?

At least we have our priorities straight.

No. I'd be willing to have a president who didn't make spineless, empty threats. Our president is nothing more than an empty sound bite.

Sent from my C811 4G using Tapatalk 2

__________________
There is only one certain barrier to truth, the conviction that you already have it- Unknown

I only brought that up in case someone from the fingerpointing crowd was going to use it as an excuse to derail and deflect.
But I'll try to answer why, and what I was thinking about when I said it.

The history behind Iraq and Iran is pretty well known by now, but between us, Europe, and the Russians, we've really thrown a lot of gasoline on the fire in the Middle east, going back at least a hundred years.
That makes it a little more complicated, but .......

While we were meddling in Iraq in the 80's, we encouraged the Kurds to rebel against Saddam. At the same time we were happy to supply Saddam weapons to fight Iran. (I'll leave out the part where we installed the Shah of Iran in the 50's)
Well the Kurds believed us when we said we would help, started to rebel, and Saddam massacred them with poison gas and other nasty things and we hung the Kurds out to dry, didn't lift a finger.
That's what you call setting someone up. Real dirty deed.
So, a decade later, there we are invading Iraq, sacrificing thousands of our young men, billions of dollars......all because we ignored morality.
The morality to do the right thing, at the right time, for the right reason.

Now, I don't always agree about everything even with close friends of mine, and that's ok.
If someone says we shouldn't get involved at all, I can respect that and most of the time I would say the same thing.
But in that particular case involving the Kurds, we really screwed the pooch. What we did was pretty shameful, and my point was not doing the right thing from the beginning really, really cost us in more ways than one.



Now this one.
Can I prove that Assad is going to attack U.S. soil with poison gas?
Nope. He hasn't even made a threat. I'd be doing a poor imitation of Colin Powell at the U.N. lol.

If you think destroying the chemical stocks is the best way to handle it, I'll concede that.
It's just that there are men in this world that you can see the evil inside of them.
Hitler was one, Assad's father was another and there have been many. I'm afraid that this one, is of the same kind. Sometimes the best thing you can do for a rabid dog is put it down. It saves everybody a lot of misery.

We all live in a bizarro world now.

__________________
"Change We Can Deceive In"

Assassinating Assad is idle talk. He will flee to Russia or Iran if things get too hot but whoever replaces him will be worse than he is. With the situation in Egypt and Libya, if the radicals take control in Syria the stage is set for a major regional war in the ME.

__________________
Dear Math, it is time you grew up and solved your own problems.

Simple. As long as they are fighting each other they will not be fighting us. Win #1. As long as they are buying our weapons we are making money. Win #2.

__________________
Remember, when seconds count. . .
the police are just MINUTES away!

Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. . .Davy Crockett

Farmerbrown Well we don't do what is moral here so why should we anywhere else in the world . Those banksters pull the strings financing all sides of every war that has ever been

__________________
Check it Out O added another Plank With O care
http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist...to-Planks.html

The US cannot and will not take on Russia. It is a simple fact. Once this starts there will be no controlling what happens. Bush was faced with a similar situation over Georgia and he did nothing which was all he could do. When all but the shouting was over he sent humanitarian aide which was delivered by military planes - just to make a show.

Until Russia sides with the rest of the world any military action will be very risky. The fact that chemical weapons are being used now has Russia nervous. It took years for anyone to intervene in Bosnia so it will be the same again.

And then of course today the peace talks in Israel were called off because the Israeli's shot 3 Palestinians. And of course they announced the building of 1000 more homes on disputed land last week. Can anyone spell "antagonize"? Sounds like they REALLY want to co-operate and work towards a solution by upping the antagonizing in the days just before the meeting.

Did Syria Receive Its Chemical Weapons from Saddam?



John Hudson 10,219 Views Jul 27, 2012
Syria's admission Monday that it has chemical weapons has revived a controversial theory about one of the biggest intelligence failures in American history: The non-existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The theory holds that Saddam Hussein did in fact have huge stockpiles of chemical weapons all along, but they were never uncovered by U.S. forces because he secretly smuggled them out to Syria days before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. If true, it's the type of revelation that would recaste the Iraq War in the history books, which is why neocons have begun reviving it as evidence of the "wisdom of Bush's Mideast policies." But that's one ginormous "if," and it's a theory many media observers have dismissed. Still, because Syria's admission Monday was the most "direct confirmation" of the stockpiles' existence, reporters have begun revisiting their notes and re-exploring the facts of that fateful period. Here's the case for and against the Saddam chemical weapons handoff:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/globa...-saddam/55142/


I believed it then and still do.

__________________
"Change We Can Deceive In"

My opinion...
Yes the people in the photos that are dead are really dead. There are pictures of people injured/affected by the gas who are not dead(or not dead yet).

There are a lot of people who are dead from chemical attack(gas).

No we don't know who exactly did it, but my guess would be the government did it. For people who keep saying "WHY would the government kill their own people?" don't be silly. Everyone seems perfectly content to say OUR government is killing/planning on killing us, so why wouldn't you believe another government would do the same thing? Supposedly the gov is trying to kill the rebels and the civilians who are dying are just "bycatch". Or the rebels are using the chemical weapons and the civilians are bycatch to them, or either side is killing civilians and trying to say the other side did it in attempts to make the other side look like the bad guys.

At any rate, why should the US get involved? That's what the UN is for. Let them go in and try to make peace and decide what should/should not happen. Let them organize a task force made up of several country's fighters and equipment and supplies.

We do not need to go throwing our people into yet another foreign country. I feel bad for the civilians being killed. All of them, children and adults. But I don't think our country needs to be throwing away billions of dollars and thousands of US lives in a conflict that has no winner.