Evidence: Syrian Rebels used Chemical Weapons (not Assad)

evince said:
How well would that have gone for the middle east?
Click to expand...

There is proof that the US constructed the situation where Kuwait was doing everything in it's power to destroy the Iraq economy. There is also proof that April Glaspie relayed the message that the US had no concern with Saddam going into Kuwait.

The Gulf War was for the same phony reasons as the following one. It all makes perfect sense and it all adds up. Even you are probably aware of those facts but find them inconvenient at this time with Obama's faux march to war.

I know now that you know a little more than your crude oneline insults are indicating.
 
tell that to the children who greated my brother in law when he walked into the cities after freeing the people.

the children surrounded them and thanked them and begged them for food.

I made him some big fat sugar cookies in the shape of heart with pink and red icing on them.



they were in his possession when he marched his men into the city.

the starving children gobbled them down with joy.

Its an image I will always think of.
 
evince said:
tell that to the children who greated my brother in law when he walked into the cities after freeing the people.

the children surrounded them and thanked them and begged them for food.

I made him some big fat sugar cookies in the shape of heart with pink and red icing on them.



they were in his possession when he marched his men into the city.

the starving children gobbled them down with joy.

Its an image I will always think of.
Click to expand...

None of which is a rebuttal in any way to the points I made. Are you not aware that Kuwait is ruled by an evil and corrupt monarchy? Are you aware that both Kuwait and Saudi monarchies starve their own people for reasons that have nothing to do with war? Are you aware that your country supports the Saudi monarchy and it's slaughter of it's own people.

Shouldn't you really be thinking of going to war against Saudi or Kuwait? After all, they are the evil forces in the ME.

Don't try to play dumb with me. In different circumstances I know by your history here that you know better. And besides, it destroys your position on this war effort by revealing that you are a warmonger when the circumstances are convenient for you.
 
The children thanked our troops for saving them.


why NO credit for the US for helping those children
 
evince said:
The children thanked our troops for saving them.


why NO credit for the US for helping those children
Click to expand...

It wasn't for you with Saddam (who absolutely used them on the Khurds, zero question unlike here), why should it be for us with Assad? This is solely and only to ensure the President doesn't lose face and that's not a good enough reason for war. Ever.
 
Damocles said:
It wasn't for you with Saddam (who absolutely used them on the Khurds, zero question unlike here), why should it be for us with Assad? This is solely and only to ensure the President doesn't lose face and that's not a good enough reason for war. Ever.
Click to expand...

You should find the evidence that was presented by CIA department head Stephen Pelletiere and educate yourself on the reason why you should have doubts about who gassed the Kurds.

Then we will revisit the question of whether Pelletiere was lying or not. And then we can look at the implications of him lying or not. We've been over this before and all of you ran away from the discussion.

US propaganda is not always flawless and so consequently it sometimes doesn't stand at a later date. And besides, we all know that the Iraq war was for phony reasons anyway don't we. Don't try to feign concern for the Iraqi people at this late date. None of that works anymore.
 
Damocles said:
It wasn't for you with Saddam (who absolutely used them on the Khurds, zero question unlike here), why should it be for us with Assad? This is solely and only to ensure the President doesn't lose face and that's not a good enough reason for war. Ever.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This is just one article expressing the same:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-threaten-wars-that-the-people-oppose/279410/

Presidents Shouldn't Be Able to Credibly Threaten Wars That the People Oppose

There's no shame in telling the world the truth: that our system intentionally constrains the executive branch.
Conor Friedersdorf Sep 6 2013, 7:00 AM ET

In the Washington Post, Michael Gerson argues that preserving the perception that "the commander in chief is fully in command" is so important that it would sometimes be worth supporting "wrong or pointless" wars in order to maintain it. Put that way, it sounds shocking. One wonders how many human lives Gerson would sacrifice to prevent what he sees as a weakening of the presidency. Yet every time anyone argues that America must go to war in Syria because of President Obama's "red line" comments and the impact a failure to follow through would have on American credibility, the same premise is implicit: Keeping a reputation for follow-through is, for these hawks, reason enough to wage war.

This aversion to Congress contradicting the president wasn't shared by the generation that gave us co-equal branches designed to check one another. They expected that the legislature would often contradict the executive, including on matters of war, especially given the presence of both a lower and an upper body.

Jim Manzi explains at National Review (emphasis added):

The most common argument for attacking Syria is that we must maintain our credibility when the sitting president issues ultimatums (even if they are ill-advised).

The problem with this is that while the president of the United States has awesome powers under the Constitution, they do not include declaring war. He can declare “red lines” all he wants, but he can’t constitutionally commit the nation to preemptive military action in the event they are crossed. If this “loss of credibility” means in practical terms that U.S. presidents are less able to make credible insinuations that they can unilaterally commit us to wars, then this would likely result in: fewer such presidential assertions being issued; more consultation and consideration before they are issued; and more reliable delivery on the threats when the situation calls for it. Such a loss of credibility would be a feature, not a bug.

Just so.

What the U.S. should signal to the world is that U.S. credibility does not rest on doing any fool thing uttered by the person who happens to be president at a given time. He or she doesn't speak for all Americans, and lacks the power to act in ways that the people and their elected representatives judge to be foolhardy. Unlike the perception Gerson wants to create, this has the virtue of being true.

It is the hawks who threaten American credibility most in the long run, both because they'd make us subject to any chance comment from the series of fallible politicians who make it to the White House, and because waging an ill-conceived war, with all the attendant negative consequences, hurts the credibility of a nation a lot more than any mere rhetoric. When we look back at blows to American credibility, we think of Vietnam and Iraq, not some bit of rhetoric and the way the world interpreted our follow through. If an American intervention in Syria goes badly, our credibility will suffer profoundly, and hawks will once again bear blame for weakening America more than any other Americans.

Nothing weakens a country like an ill-conceived war.
Click to expand...
 
Damocles said:
It wasn't for you with Saddam (who absolutely used them on the Khurds, zero question unlike here), why should it be for us with Assad? This is solely and only to ensure the President doesn't lose face and that's not a good enough reason for war. Ever.
Click to expand...


and who acted in the first month of those attacks?

no one from the Reagan camp because he sold them to him.


That was NOT the reason given for our march to war was it
 
monty1 said:
You should find the evidence that was presented by CIA department head Stephen Pelletiere and educate yourself on the reason why you should have doubts about who gassed the Kurds.
Click to expand...
If you think there was a question in Iraq, then you should be crapping your pants demanding better evidence now.

Then we will revisit the question of whether Pelletiere was lying or not. And then we can look at the implications of him lying or not. We've been over this before and all of you ran away from the discussion.

US propaganda is not always flawless and so consequently it sometimes doesn't stand at a later date. And besides, we all know that the Iraq war was for phony reasons anyway don't we. Don't try to feign concern for the Iraqi people at this late date. None of that works anymore.
Click to expand...

We have not "been over this before" you are now making up personal history. You're right, US Propaganda isn't always flawless, but in this case you will subvert your beliefs to support a moron who uttered a "red line" threat in a moment of teleprompterless stupidity and tell me it is perfect.

However, the reality is Saddam used his air force to deliver the gas. It really isn't in question that he killed the Khurds. Even John Kerry promotes him and Hitler as the only people to do that. (Of course he's wrong, we use WP, which is a chemical weapon per the definitions in this same treaty you pretend to support here).
 
evince said:
The children thanked our troops for saving them.


why NO credit for the US for helping those children
Click to expand...

Children who are disadvantaged and next to starving because of the treatment they are receiving from their corrupt government are very easy to influence. A two cent candy will do it every time. And the opportunity must not be missed to film it all and present it as propaganda. Because simpleminded people like you will eat it up without any hesitation.

Now let's rise above it shall we? At least with me because it doesn't work for me. And I know you can do a lot better.

How about a discussion on the socalled proof of Assad gassing people? When will there be proof? And why is it that the world hasn't seen the proof so far as valid enough for war? Why could the world ignore the SC in other cases such as the mockup Kosovo phony war and it can't for this one? Is it because the world has been burnt too many times by the US propagandists?

When will you stop believing everything you are told by them? Haven't you been burnt too?
 
he is anti action in this one.


I just cant understand why so many of you want someone in the middle east to inherit this weapons system.

if its tangled metal no one want it or can use it
 
If that delivery system is Gone than there is a lot less reason for more AQ to fight for control of it
 
evince said:
If that delivery system is Gone than there is a lot less reason for more AQ to fight for control of it
Click to expand...

Again you betray your real motives. And in so doing your compromise your position on which side to take. You're lost in your emotional morass and now you are just too proud to admit you have nothing material to back your position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top