Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

It remains to be seen, for sure. Obama is already saying "the United States remains prepared to act" if Damascus failed to comply, but hopefully it will prevent any future chemical attacks from occurring. Hopefully Assad realizes that he wouldn't get away with it.

Obviously the US had no choice but to enter into this agreement. You have to try. I get that. I just am not one of those

people who thinks sociopaths will stick to agreements.

Do I want war no. Do I want a-holes like Assad held responsible for their crimes yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The West is the centre of the world's enlightenment and far more advanced in its human rights and treatment of other nations than anywhere else. It is, in fact, the freest, kindest, most enlightened s

I agree that if big business is the only beneficiary of action then it should not be done.

I can't believe people posting and opposing attack on Bashir Assad's bases!!!!. Wake up people who are claiming to defend the defenseless. Responsible for chemical attacks or not, Bashir Assad is a pr

Obviously the US had no choice but to enter into this agreement. You have to try. I get that. I just am not one of those

people who thinks sociopaths will stick to agreements.

Do I want war no. Do I want a-holes like Assad held responsible for their crimes yes.

Depends on how serious Putin is. If the Ruskies turn on him, Assad is done like dinner.

I think we would all like to see Assad held responsible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman

Obviously the US had no choice but to enter into this agreement. You have to try. I get that. I just am not one of those

people who thinks sociopaths will stick to agreements.

It sounds as if he's going to be held accountable, like Saddam was, as part of the deal.

Do I want war no. Do I want a-holes like Assad held responsible for their crimes yes.

Agreed.
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, despite Assad's history, some have no problem believing the worst about Obama while giving Assad the benefit of the doubt.

Says a lot, really.

I dont think pointing out that the US government has a serious credibility issue is "believing the worst". And wanting to see evidence does not mean I think Assad is innocent... I have no idea, and nobody else that hasnt seen the evidence has any idea either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think pointing out that the US government has a serious credibility issue is "believing the worst". And wanting to see evidence does not mean I think Assad is innocent... I have no idea, and nobody else that hasnt seen the evidence has any idea either.

So true.

So far it sounds just like another trumped up reason to start a war to benefit the resource and arms industries. The latter in particular must be really feeling the pinch of winding down in Iraq & Afghanistan. Of course they're going to lobby for another war!

It's good to know that most Americans are demanding clearer evidence this time too. Maybe they're onto the scam.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think pointing out that the US government has a serious credibility issue is "believing the worst". And wanting to see evidence does not mean I think Assad is innocent... I have no idea, and nobody else that hasnt seen the evidence has any idea either.

Only if you get all your information from the MSM. Iraq and Syria had chemical weapons for decades much to 'everyone's surprise'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if you get all your information from the MSM. Iraq and Syria had chemical weapons for decades much to 'everyone's surprise'.

Not sure what youre on about here... Nobody doubts that Syria has chemical weapons. When I referred to evidence, I was talking about evidence showing Assad ordered the recent chemical deployment near the Capitol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what youre on about here... Nobody doubts that Syria has chemical weapons. When I referred to evidence, I was talking about evidence showing Assad ordered the recent chemical deployment near the Capitol.

Nobody doubts it NOW. However, about a year ago the story was much different. Folks like BC-2004 and I were scoffed at for suggesting such a thing. Now you do things like play the race card for me bringing-up uncomfortable historical facts about the bedraggled Palestinians. It's the usual denial followed by attempted character assassination.

But, hey. At least you've learned a lot about chemical warfare that you had zero clue about. Perhaps now you'll give yourself a crash course on the Khartoum Resolution.

:lol:

...or not.

:lol: :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody doubts it NOW. However, about a year ago the story was much different. Folks like BC-2004 and I were scoffed at for suggesting such a thing. Now you do things like play the race card for me bringing-up uncomfortable historical facts about the bedraggled Palestinians. It's the usual denial followed by attempted character assassination.

But, hey. At least you've learned a lot about chemical warfare that you had zero clue about. Perhaps now you'll give yourself a crash course on the Khartoum Resolution.

:lol:

...or not.

:lol: :lol:

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody doubts it NOW. However, about a year ago the story was much different. Folks like BC-2004 and I were scoffed at for suggesting such a thing.

No, we scoffed at the notion that it was Assad and the Syrian army who carried out the previous attacks. No one denied Syria had chemical weapons. Can't even blame it on short term memory either since we can all just do a search for those threads and find out what was really said.

Now you do things like play the race card for me bringing-up uncomfortable historical facts about the bedraggled Palestinians. It's the usual denial followed by attempted character assassination.

Yes, poor you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, we scoffed at the notion that it was Assad and the Syrian army who carried out the previous attacks. No one denied Syria had chemical weapons. Can't even blame it on short term memory either since we can all just do a search for those threads and find out what was really said.

Yes, poor you.

The suggestion that Saddam moved his chemical weapons precursors to Syria or perhaps buried them in the desert was soundly rejected by you and others.

Yes poor me...good thing I never use the report button.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The suggestion that Saddam moved his chemical weapons precursors to Syria or perhaps buried them in the desert was soundly rejected by you and others.

Yes poor me...good thing I never use the report button.

syria has had the chemical weapons since the 80's.

the same 80's when u.s. actively helped iraq use its chemical weapons against the kurds and iranians.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The suggestion that Saddam moved his chemical weapons precursors to Syria or perhaps buried them in the desert was soundly rejected by you and others.

Yes poor me...good thing I never use the report button.

More dishonesty... I remember some of those discussions, and they werent about precursors. Saddam was accused of having large WMD stockpiles, and an active industrial scale production program. It was the idea that THAT was trucked into Syria that was scoffed at. Not some precursors. :rolleyes:

Good grief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

syria has had the chemical weapons since the 80's.

the same 80's when u.s. actively helped iraq use its chemical weapons against the kurds and iranians.

The US never actively helped Iraq use chemical weapons against the Kurds or Iranians. You failed to prove that. You were called out on it and exposed for your inaccuracy. Repeating a faleshood does not make it true. At no time did the US actively assist Iraq in using chemicals. That is an out and out lie.

The US as did many other countries did not actively intervene at first but the US was the ONLY country with Britain who then went in to remove Hussein after he would not stop using chemicals. The US never sold chemicals to Iraq nor provided training on how to shoot or create chemical warheads. It did not supervise the military in Iraq that used them. Your statement is an out and out falsehood. The US and Britain are the only countries on record removing Hussein. You can't have it both ways. You can't lie that the US assisted Hussein use gas when they did not but conveniently ignore their removing him precisely because of his war crimes.

Your selectivity in ignoring the supply of chemicals to Syria by Russia, Iran and North Korea, and the supply of chemicals to Iran by Russia and China speaks for itself. You have zero credibility with your selective misrepresentations of history.

Edited by Rue
Link to post
Share on other sites

syria has had the chemical weapons since the 80's.

the same 80's when u.s. actively helped iraq use its chemical weapons against the kurds and iranians.

Yes this is true. Not the Kurds, though. The Iranians, for sure. I don't think you were one of the scoffers to be fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How much faith/trust do you put in that particular individual? How do you keep sarin fresh for a decade?

Your comment is absurd. Sarin does not remain fresh. Would you please go find out about its properties and why it can remain stored indefinitely. It would help before you contribute such comments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your comment is absurd. Sarin does not remain fresh. Would you please go find out about its properties and why it can remain stored indefinitely. It would help before you contribute such comments.

Once the precursors are mixed it has a limited shelf-life. Sarin, that is. VX has no such limits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More dishonesty... I remember some of those discussions, and they werent about precursors. Saddam was accused of having large WMD stockpiles, and an active industrial scale production program. It was the idea that THAT was trucked into Syria that was scoffed at. Not some precursors. :rolleyes:

Good grief.

Good grief you can claim you said anything at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it laughable again?

Its not laughable. Its possible that Saddam could have moved some chemical precursors to Syria. The problem is as I said before, thats not the part anyone scoffed at. Saddam was accused of having active industrial scale production, and large stockpiles of munitions.

Your post-hoc revisionism rewrites those old arguments to be just about precursors, but that wasnt the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...