Syria: Does Use of Chemical Weapons Change Anything?

[Lumber_Jack]

So we strike Syria, Syria strikes Isreal, Isreal strikes Syria and throws in Iran for good measure, Russia strikes Saudi Arabia.....sounds great, what could go wrong?

[Peace]

S.N.A.F.U.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

He is trying to use Congress as cover to get his strike. If it was a worthwhile venture and valuable to protect our

country, he, or a president with some sense, would have already struck. It doesn't matter about how those Syrians

died, but whether or not we had anything to do with it. The only thing that could come out of a strike is that we will

be blamed for killing innocents over there.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130902/DA8I41EO0.html

 

Thew only reason he is doing this is to provide a change in the news cycle away from his domestic problems. I can't,

for the life of me, understand why this idea of using gas makes it more of a reason to intervene in someone else's

conflict. Let them kill each other off. If he attacks Syria, Israel will be dragged into this and Iran has their excuse to

punish the Great Satan, as they call it. And including John McCain in the talks only increases the possibility of WWIII.

 

If there ever was a time for non-intervention, this is it.

[TMF]

He is trying to use Congress as cover to get his strike. If it was a worthwhile venture and valuable to protect our

country, he, or a president with some sense, would have already struck. It doesn't matter about how those Syrians

died, but whether or not we had anything to do with it. The only thing that could come out of a strike is that we will

be blamed for killing innocents over there.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130902/DA8I41EO0.html

 

Thew only reason he is doing this is to provide a change in the news cycle away from his domestic problems. I can't,

for the life of me, understand why this idea of using gas makes it more of a reason to intervene in someone else's

conflict. Let them kill each other off. If he attacks Syria, Israel will be dragged into this and Iran has their excuse to

punish the Great Satan, as they call it. And including John McCain in the talks only increases the possibility of WWIII.

 

If there ever was a time for non-intervention, this is it.

 

I agree with most of that, but I still think that this is an ego thing more than a distraction.  He is trying to save face and there isn't a good way to do that; just bad options and worse.  Since he is just an arrogant screwhead, he feels like launching some missles is the bad option, whereas I would classify it as the worse option.  The reason for the difference of opinion is that he is worried about what is worse for him, not the country.  Saving face for him is more important than keeping America out of an open ended conflict.  Of course, if Congress says "no" he can still seem like he's saving face because he can blame Congress for why he didn't follow through on his "red line" nonsense.

 

Mark my words, if we drop ordinance on Syria we have made an implied committment.  I don't see it ending there.  Congress needs to shut him down on this one.

[TSprint1]

Syria: Does Use of Chemical Weapons Change Anything?

There is no doubt that Sarin, in any form, is bad stuff but Napalm and WP are pretty indiscriminate killers also.  You can aim it but  you sure as heck can't fully contain any of 'em.  Where do you draw the line? I dunno but I do know that you never, ever broadcast your intentions in advance.  Threats that are broadcast publicly are BS.  IMO.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I agree with most of that, but I still think that this is an ego thing more than a distraction.  He is trying to save face and there isn't a good way to do that; just bad options and worse.  Since he is just an arrogant screwhead, he feels like launching some missles is the bad option, whereas I would classify it as the worse option.  The reason for the difference of opinion is that he is worried about what is worse for him, not the country.  Saving face for him is more important than keeping America out of an open ended conflict.  Of course, if Congress says "no" he can still seem like he's saving face because he can blame Congress for why he didn't follow through on his "red line" nonsense.

 

Mark my words, if we drop ordinance on Syria we have made an implied committment.  I don't see it ending there.  Congress needs to shut him down on this one.

It's an ego thing, also, and the precedent of lobbing missiles was set by Clinton, to get the media away from Monica Lewinsky.

That doesn't really matter since we have no valid reason for any kind of intervention, any way. Narcissists usually don't care

what other people think. They just do, according to their whims or pre-conceived notions.

 

I agree on the implied committment, also. It won't end there. John McCain will assist in getting us in a war, for all the wrong

reasons, including helping Obama sidetrack all his domestic issues that could drag him down.

 

The problem on dropping that ordinance is that there is no ally and both sides are enemies. All it could do is hurt everyone.

Obama has dropped any committment to Israel like a sack of flour. They are the only we had before. I really feel bad for

Israel.

[TMF]

So it looks like the excuse the libs are using on this is that by not intervening when chemical weapons are used it opens up the door to them being used with impunity by other rogue regimes in the future.  Of course the answer to that is, "so what?"

 

Not to be callous, but seriously, why do we need to enforce international law?  I don't understand why we would be the world's police on this one, especially when no other country is willing to get involved other than us, and WE aren't even willing to get involved; just the merry band of libtards who worship their lord and savior Obama. 

 

I was watching All In with that little smarmy ultra liberal who looks like a more lesbian version of Rachel Madcow and couldn't believe what I was hearing.  The same libtard who accused Bush of an illegal war (which it wasn't) and being a war criminal is beating the drums claiming that Obama is right for military action.  WTF?  I'm convinced that Obama could execute an infant and these idiots would still support him.  I actually found myself agreeing with a Democrat on Chris Matthews when he said that international law can not be enforced on an individual nation by another individual nation.  It must be a multinational response.  We don't have that. 

 

I continue to be amazed at my own naivity when it comes to Obama.  I always say "there's no way Obama will do that" and he proves me wrong every time.  It's looking like military intervention, to include ground troops is going to happen.  Hold on to your hats.  Unlike Iraq, the vast majority of Americans know this is not worth it before it even begins. 

 

Here is some opining by Rand Paul on how and why he is going to vote:

 

http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/04/sen-rand-paul-why-im-voting-no-on-syria/

[Guest nra37922]

Does anyone really think that Russia and/or Iran is going to let this particular ally fall?  Russia probably will not get directly involved but I can see Iran openly going to Syria's aid.  

[TMF]

Does anyone really think that Russia and/or Iran is going to let this particular ally fall?  Russia probably will not get directly involved but I can see Iran openly going to Syria's aid.  

 

Iran has already shown their committment by sending a brigade sized element to support Assad.  Russia doesn't need to do much in the way of further support; they already provide them with all the weapons they need to keep it going.

 

Some real irony here is the Chinese.  Many of the equalizing weapons the Syrian opposition have been using were sold to the Saudis from China and are being supplied to the "rebels" from Saudiya.  Most notable are the guided anti-tank missle systems which have crippled Assad's armor capability.  Also wreaking havoc are those Chinese .50 cal sniper systems. 

[Chucktshoes]

Iran has already shown their committment by sending a brigade sized element to support Assad.  Russia doesn't need to do much in the way of further support; they already provide them with all the weapons they need to keep it going.
 
Some real irony here is the Chinese.  Many of the equalizing weapons the Syrian opposition have been using were sold to the Saudis from China and are being supplied to the "rebels" from Saudiya.  Most notable are the guided anti-tank missle systems which have crippled Assad's armor capability.  Also wreaking havoc are those Chinese .50 cal sniper systems.

Looks like the Chinese are using our early-mid 20th century play book. Provide weapons, material and political support to both sides for fun and profit.

[RobertNashville]

It's an ego thing, also, and the precedent of lobbing missiles was set by Clinton, to get the media away from Monica Lewinsky.

That doesn't really matter since we have no valid reason for any kind of intervention, any way. Narcissists usually don't care

what other people think. They just do, according to their whims or pre-conceived notions.

 

I agree on the implied committment, also. It won't end there. John McCain will assist in getting us in a war, for all the wrong

reasons, including helping Obama sidetrack all his domestic issues that could drag him down.

 

The problem on dropping that ordinance is that there is no ally and both sides are enemies. All it could do is hurt everyone.

Obama has dropped any committment to Israel like a sack of flour. They are the only we had before. I really feel bad for

Israel.

This is about Obama, in that he wants his agenda to keep going and the surest way for him to make that possible is to divert people from watching what is still going in in Congress.  Obamacare, Immigration "reform", our deficit and debt crisis, gun control...all those things are being worked on and many Republicans are falling in line to support them while everyone is looking the other way.

 

We have no business doing anything in Syria for multiple reasons, but ultimately, what we do or don't do in Syria is probably far less important to the future of this country that what the legislation sitting in Congress that no one, especially the press, is paying attention to.

[Guest nra37922]

Russia says it's compiled 100-page report blaming Syrian rebels for a chemical weapons attack

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html#storylink=cpy

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html#.Uii7tH82OSo

[TMF]

Russia says it's compiled 100-page report blaming Syrian rebels for a chemical weapons attack

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html#storylink=cpy

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html#.Uii7tH82OSo

I'm not at all a conspiracy theorist, but this wouldn't surprise me. I've suspected from the start that this is a possibility, since rebels have had access to chemical weapons through raids conducted. In the beginning that's how they acquired so many manpads. It ain't too far fetched to figure they may have taken by force or defection chemical weapons. There are many within that organization that would gas the citizenry in order to drag us into it, especially since the people they gassed aren't considered "their people".

It's sad that I believe Putin over our own president. These are sad times.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEcch-r28Bc

[Chucktshoes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEcch-r28Bc

Saw that yesterday. My absolute favorite part was after Kerry's statement at the end and the offer to the General to chime in and his response. :lol:

[bersaguy]

Biting Lower lip once again........... :hiding:

[Dennis1209]

I would suggest chemical, biological and nuclear weapons (NBC) are weapons of mass destruction that are indiscriminate in their killing and outlawed by the Geneva Convention, not that it matters to despots or religious Allah fanatics.

 

In my opinion, if you have a chemical weapon and use it, you will use a biological weapon or nuclear weapon if you have it. Fortunately, of the three classifications of mass destruction, chemical weapons are the least effective long and short term, in my opinion.

 

Other questions to ask yourself? We have a stockpile of NBC weapons... Who are "we" to tell another sovereign nation they may not posses them even though the nation might be a bunch of fanatic crazies?  

 

Right or wrong, who has been the only sovereign nation to unleash it's atomic power on another nation and level two cities? So I don't think we can use the higher moral grounds argument to dissuade other nations WMD?

 

Just something to think about?

Edited September 5, 2013 by Dennis1209

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Saw that yesterday. My absolute favorite part was after Kerry's statement at the end and the offer to the General to chime in and his response. :lol:

 

Little known fact-- Kerry also served in vietnam (3:55). :)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cViIYX4zr7E

[Oh Shoot]

Little known fact-- Kerry also served in vietnam (3:55). :)

 

Yeah, and if he'd stayed just an extra day or so, he'd have found a way to get the Congressional Medal of Honor, too!

 

"Swift Boat" stuff for whippersnappers here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_military_service_controversy

 

- OS

[TMF]

Little known fact-- Kerry also served in vietnam (3:55). :)

He did? Huh, he shoulda mentioned that in his presidential run.

[Oh Shoot]

He did? Huh, he shoulda mentioned that in his presidential run.

 

He got kinda quiet about it once his comrades in arms started talking to the press and they dug up the shenanigans at the various war offices concerning his hammering for medals.

 

- OS

Edited September 6, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[bersaguy]

Yeah, and if he'd stayed just an extra day or so, he'd have found a way to get the Congressional Medal of Honor, too!

 

"Swift Boat" stuff for whippersnappers here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_military_service_controversy

 

- OS

 

I just happen to know a few of those swift boat captains and not saying this about all of them but the ones I knew were all boarder line lunatics so having them speak in his behalf does not carry much weight with me.........jmho

[Oh Shoot]

I just happen to know a few of those swift boat captains and not saying this about all of them but the ones I knew were all boarder line lunatics so having them speak in his behalf does not carry much weight with me.........jmho

 

They didn't, if you remember your history (or read the link, ahem). They mostly dissed him, called him out for putting in for medals he didn't deserve and etc.

 

- OS

Edited September 6, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[TMF]

He got kinda quiet about it once his comrades in arms started talking to the press and they dug up the shenanigans at the various war offices concerning his hammering for medals.

- OS

Oh I remember all that nonsense. I watched the Pres race through the eyes of foreign news sources, as I was overseas at the time, casting my ballot which would never be opened. I didn't meet a single person in the military that voted for him due to all that BS he was spouting... "Reporting for duty".... what a moron. So glad we didn't get that idiot as pres.

[bersaguy]

They didn't, if you remember your history (or read the link, ahem). They mostly dissed him, called him out for putting in for medals he didn't deserve and etc.

 

- OS

 

They didn't, if you remember your history (or read the link, ahem). They mostly dissed him, called him out for putting in for medals he didn't deserve and etc.

 

- OS

Well those must have been some of them I didn't meet cause the ones I did meet would have campaigned for him........