Syria and political hypocrisy

Taft2016 said:
Yes, yes, yes. The same old mantra.

"Al Qaeda was all over the world, especially in the Middle East. But by God they were nowhere to be found in Iraq.

In fact, Saddam specifically only provided a haven to anti-Israeli terrorists, and did not allow any anti-American terrorists within his borders. Even though the USA was the nation that humiliated him before the whole world."

There; now that your argument is laid before you.... doesn't it sound silly?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/al-qaeda-iraq

From Tony Blair:




There's a lot more if you care to read... but somehow I doubt you're interested in the truth.
Click to expand...
Zarqawi was not part of AQ when he was in Iraq. He did not align hikmself with OBL until AFTER the US invasion of Iraq. There was no AQ presence of any significance there and there certainly was no support of even passive acquiescence from Saddam for them. THe overriding goal of AQ has always been to eliminate secular arab nation states of which Iraq was certainly one. Saddam was all about helping arab nationalism, not wahabbist islamic extremism. Which made the argument that Dubya used that said that if Saddam had WMD's he'd give them to AQ to use on US patently ridiculous.
 
evince said:
They did say things

Ill go get the proof
Click to expand...

And make sure you find the quotes where there was discussion of using missiles or troops and the like by the USA acting alone. That's my point, and if you can't then my statement stands valid.
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/04/syria-chemical-weapons-un-report.html



France, Britain confirm use of sarin gas in Syria

UN report also accuses both regime and rebels of committing war crimes

The Associated Press

Posted: Jun 4, 2013 6:55 AM ET








Some experts cautioned that the type of evidence currently available to investigators — videos, witness reports and physiological samples of uncertain origin — leaves wide doubts.

At the same time, forensic evidence of alleged chemical weapons use is fading away with time, and the longer UN inspectors are kept out of Syria, the harder it will be to collect conclusive proof, they said.



the conclusive PROOF is now in hand.

that is why NOW is the time to talk of action.
 
Taichiliberal said:
You need to READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY MY ANSWERS AND ORIGINAL STATEMENTS. Taft is just a knee jerk neocon/teabagger who is doing EXACTLY what I said his mindset are doing...somehow trying to rewrite history and blame Obama (i.e., democrats, liberals, etc.) for all ills.
Click to expand...

OK dude, I'll gonna give you one last chance before you're flushed...

I asked "when did the USA ever get involved in a civil war where neither side represented American interests?"

You replied "Iran"

The conversation continued (in paraphrase)... "When did the USA get involved in an Iranian civil war where neither side represented American interests?"

You replied with an example wherein the USA did participate in a struggle for Iranian leadership, but an example wherein one side clearly represented American interests. So it was an irrelevant example. It didn't fit the criteria.

So I ask again for example where the USA participated in an Iranian civil war where neither side represented US interests and you give the same example.

What you're saying is not factually false, it's just factually irrelevant. You may as well be saying, "The sky is blue and oranges are orange." Yeah, it's true, but has nothing to do with the question.

A person of *normal* intelligence would have said, "Oh yeah, I see your point. No, the USA never got involved in an Iranian civil war where neither side represented American interests."

But not you...you have to drag the discussion all over creation to hide the fact that you slipped on a rather rudimentary question. Grow up. Man up already.
 
maineman said:
how many of the six casualties were targets?
Click to expand...

Is this forum some sort of troll joke site or something?

WTF does that have to do with anything...

He mentioned a drone strike, you said that indicated he knew nothing about modern weaponry, I pointed out the NY Times called it a "drone strike" too, and you...

ask me "how many of the six casualties were targets"?

WTF does that have to do with anything?

It's like stream of conscious lunacy here....
 
Taft2016 said:
Is this forum some sort of troll joke site or something?

WTF does that have to do with anything...

He mentioned a drone strike, you said that indicated he knew nothing about modern weaponry, I pointed out the NY Times called it a "drone strike" too, and you...

ask me "how many of the six casualties were targets"?

WTF does that have to do with anything?

It's like stream of conscious lunacy here....
Click to expand...

he said that the drone strike hit a village... implying that the citizenry of the village were all indiscriminate targets as an example of Obama's disregard for civilians. If the drone was aimed at a particular house that we had solid intelligence that indicated that it contained enemy combatants, then hitting that house and killing six enemy combatants IN a village is a pretty slick move, don't you think? Our drones are that good. that's what I know.
 
those people were carrying AK47s and looking like they were about to gather to hit someone or thing
 
maineman said:
he said that the drone strike hit a village... implying that the citizenry of the village were all indiscriminate targets as an example of Obama's disregard for civilians. If the drone was aimed at a particular house that we had solid intelligence that indicated that it contained enemy combatants, then hitting that house and killing six enemy combatants IN a village is a pretty slick move, don't you think? Our drones are that good. that's what I know.
Click to expand...

I see. I guess you have no control over what your minds reads into simple sentences. Carry on.
 
Taft2016 said:
It's not really "the strictest sense of the word." We agreed to allow Saddam to remain in power, he agreed to weapons inspections. He agreed to no-fly zones. That was how hostilities ended. He nullified the cease fire. He rolled the dice, he lost.

If the terrorist camps he was harboring in Iraq were never going to hurt America, who would Saddam have wished to harm more? Israel? Maybe, but that would only be striking back at the USA by proxy. On his hate list the USA had to be a close #2.

If not #1b.
Click to expand...

Iran, that was Saddam's biggest enemy. He kept them in check, we kind of removed that thorn in Iran's side.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Let's get real, I don't want ANY country to own nuclear or chemical weapons....but that isn't going to change anytime soon. Syria has used chem weapons in the past AND NO ONE SAID A FUCKING THING ABOUT IT!

All this current hoopla is REALLY about the Benjamins, like I said in the opening post. The USA does NOT have the resources
to run around to correct every country that is slaughtering it's population on its own....that's what the UN is for.

Think about it: in the Sudan you had people being genocided the old fashion way (guns, bombs, knives) and there was NO discussion about cruise missiles.
Click to expand...

You are correct, chemical weapons were used back in February.
 
Rana said:
Iran, that was Saddam's biggest enemy. He kept them in check, we kind of removed that thorn in Iran's side.
Click to expand...


Ahhhh, I see. So Saddam was harboring Islamic terrorists to strike against Iran.

That makes sense.

Not.

They shouldn't let people like you vote, you know that?
 
evince said:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/04/syria-chemical-weapons-un-report.html



France, Britain confirm use of sarin gas in Syria

UN report also accuses both regime and rebels of committing war crimes

The Associated Press

Posted: Jun 4, 2013 6:55 AM ET








Some experts cautioned that the type of evidence currently available to investigators — videos, witness reports and physiological samples of uncertain origin — leaves wide doubts.

At the same time, forensic evidence of alleged chemical weapons use is fading away with time, and the longer UN inspectors are kept out of Syria, the harder it will be to collect conclusive proof, they said.



the conclusive PROOF is now in hand.

that is why NOW is the time to talk of action.
Click to expand...



here you go
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top