• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US suspects Syria used chemical weapons [W:284]

polgara said:
How short-sighted of the Treaty writers, who should have recognized that nothing ever stays the same, as you cited above! So, in theory, we could be attacked by someone with whom we have a Treaty, and our hands would be tied by a piece of paper? :wow:
Click to expand...

Yes, in theory and it has happened in the past. Remember the USSR and Germany signed a treaty and the following year, Hitler invaded Russia. North Vietnam signed the 1962 Geneva Accords agreeing to withdraw all their forces, they didn't, they kept them all in place while we withdrew ours. A lot of the nuclear treaties the USSR signed with us, they ignored the portions they wanted to. So it all depends on whom the piece of paper is between. So far, with Egypt anyway, both sides or all sides I should say have honored it. Oh, I almost forget, Remember Nevil Chamberlain and the treaty with Hitler he signed in 1939. There are tons of others, history is full of broken treaties. We, the U.S. are famous for signing treaties with the Indians and then breaking them and stealing more lands.
 
j-mac said:
Why was it ok with Libya? Obama shouldn't have let his big mouth write checks he had no intention of cashing. All he did, is make America look weak to enemies in the region as well as allies.
Click to expand...

It wasn't okay with Libya. No he shouldn't...the check would bounce anyway considering our country's finances. So we look weak...oh well...go ahead and attempt to actually attack us and see what happens.
 
Perotista said:
In a way I applaud President Obama for taking his time here. From what I read around 20% of those fighting the Aasad regime have AQ connections vs. Aasad which is backed by Iran. Syria could very well be a lose, lose situation regardless what we do and even if we do nothing. It could boil down to do we want an Iranian back Aasad or a AQ backed new government that disposes Aasad. Not very good choices.

But I do agree, the perception is there throughout the Middle East that once that red line was crossed, the U.S. would retaliate. Most hoped for a no fly zone while others were looking for something akin to Desert Storm.
Click to expand...


Morning Perotista,

I agree that Obama has backed himself into an impossible corner....I am in the camp of maybe a no fly zone, but not much else. Obama really screwed the pooch with his big mouth here.
 
j-mac said:
Did Obama say that "the use of any chemical weapons in Syria would change the calculus", or did he not?

What do you think he meant by that?

Empty threat?
Strong letter?
....
Nothing?

Now, all the sudden it's about the amount used?

Obama is feckless, and the world knows it.
Click to expand...

Well, I do know that the US and its allies have been backing the rebels for quite some time, with their end game being to overthrow Assad. I don't think that it was a strong threat per se, but it was a threat nonetheless and clearly implies that the US would attempt to intervene militarily as they did in Libya. However, the problem is that there isn't any conclusive evidence that Assad used chemical weapons, however I doubt that will stop Obama as we have seen the media lies in regards to Gaddafi and the myth of his giving Viagra to troops to rape women which turned out to be false.
 
j-mac said:
Morning Perotista,

I agree that Obama has backed himself into an impossible corner....I am in the camp of maybe a no fly zone, but not much else. Obama really screwed the pooch with his big mouth here.
Click to expand...

But a NFZ will easily evolve into taking out Assad. In addition to this, there were US forces on the ground in Libya. In March of 2011, retired Colonel David Hunt of the US Army and Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a former Army intelligence officer were interviewed about special forces in Libya. Hunt stated

Yes, absolutely. You’ve got British service been in there about three weeks ago and actually got captured and released. The French GIGN have been in there and our special forces and our U.S. intelligence operatives and their assets. We do not conduct operations like this, large scale air operations, without people on the ground. They have been very successful, very good, not a lot of contact with the rebels because you don’t know who to talk to. But, yes, we have got intel gathering and rescue guys and special operations guys on the ground, have had them for about 12 days.​

Shaffer stated

Yes, I have heard from my sources — I got a call from one of my key sources on Monday and that’s exactly what’s going on. Let’s be really clear here. You have got to have these individuals doing what Dave just said, especially when you are talking about trying to protect, and the stated goal here, Bill, is humanitarian support. So you don’t want to have weapons hitting the wrong targets. So, Dave is very good on the fact that we have special operations guys sitting there with laser designators.​

Source: Are U.S. Troops Already on the Ground in Libya? | Interviews | The O'Reilly Factor
 
Jack Hays said:
BHO already declared the red line. It does no one good when the POTUS tucks his tail between his legs and slinks away after talking tough.:cool:
Click to expand...

He's going to get really really mad at them now! :mrgreen:
 
Mr. Invisible said:
But a NFZ will easily evolve into taking out Assad. In addition to this, there were US forces on the ground in Libya. In March of 2011, retired Colonel David Hunt of the US Army and Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a former Army intelligence officer were interviewed about special forces in Libya. Hunt stated

Yes, absolutely. You’ve got British service been in there about three weeks ago and actually got captured and released. The French GIGN have been in there and our special forces and our U.S. intelligence operatives and their assets. We do not conduct operations like this, large scale air operations, without people on the ground. They have been very successful, very good, not a lot of contact with the rebels because you don’t know who to talk to. But, yes, we have got intel gathering and rescue guys and special operations guys on the ground, have had them for about 12 days.​

Shaffer stated

Yes, I have heard from my sources — I got a call from one of my key sources on Monday and that’s exactly what’s going on. Let’s be really clear here. You have got to have these individuals doing what Dave just said, especially when you are talking about trying to protect, and the stated goal here, Bill, is humanitarian support. So you don’t want to have weapons hitting the wrong targets. So, Dave is very good on the fact that we have special operations guys sitting there with laser designators.​

Source: Are U.S. Troops Already on the Ground in Libya? | Interviews | The O'Reilly Factor
Click to expand...


Mmmmhhhhmmmm! I understand. But, Obama has botched his involvement in the ME. So far, he seems to have backed all of the wrong elements, while snubbing our allies....This is no different. He is an empty suit.
 
j-mac said:
Morning Perotista,

I agree that Obama has backed himself into an impossible corner....I am in the camp of maybe a no fly zone, but not much else. Obama really screwed the pooch with his big mouth here.
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty much. I do not think he really knows what he wants to do or even if doing nothing might be the best thing. But as the old saying goes, words have consequences. Now that part of the world is expecting some action, but who know what they will get? But at this moment, I am happy the president hadn't rushed into something half cocked. I don't know what I would do either.
 
If AQ Syria gets to those weapons before they're secured, there'll be more hell to pay than just mud on Obama's face.
 
Perotista said:
Yeah, pretty much. I do not think he really knows what he wants to do or even if doing nothing might be the best thing. But as the old saying goes, words have consequences. Now that part of the world is expecting some action, but who know what they will get? But at this moment, I am happy the president hadn't rushed into something half cocked. I don't know what I would do either.
Click to expand...

It's a tricky situation for sure...I don't want 'boots on the ground' but then again, we need to make sure that the chemical stockpiles, plus what ever Saddam sent in during the Iraq invasion is accounted for, and doesn't fall into the hands of AQ that is pouring in.
 
j-mac said:
It's a tricky situation for sure...I don't want 'boots on the ground' but then again, we need to make sure that the chemical stockpiles, plus what ever Saddam sent in during the Iraq invasion is accounted for, and doesn't fall into the hands of AQ that is pouring in.
Click to expand...

I wondered when this silliness would pop up.

It didn't work out well with Iraq, so I would avoid this imperialistic notion of invading countries.
 
j-mac said:
Mmmmhhhhmmmm! I understand. But, Obama has botched his involvement in the ME. So far, he seems to have backed all of the wrong elements, while snubbing our allies....This is no different. He is an empty suit.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that he's botched his involvement or that he is an empty suit, rather I would say that he has greatly ratcheted up US involvement in the Middle East region and North Africa as can be seen with the attacks on Libya and Syria and the backing of French involvement in Mali. Please note, I'm not defending Obama's policies, I am against or involvement as I am a strong believer in state sovereignty, however, I am just noting that he seems to be actively involving himself rather than being "an empty suit."
 
j-mac said:
It really is no wonder that the rest of the world doesn't consider the US as any type of voice they should listen to anymore....What a sad time....
Click to expand...

Those sad times began way before Obama.
 
VanceMack said:
Syrian use of chemicals weapons will be a really really really naughty thing and will force the US to scold them and publicly denounce that action...
Click to expand...

My question is this: How exactly would chemical weapons be any naughtier than the weapons, tactics, and torture used by our allies (and the US itself)?
 
VanceMack said:
Our government shouldnt make stupid statements they cant/wont back up.
Click to expand...

Maybe instead of condemning the lack of action we should condemn the statements.
 
Samhain said:
Ask the President, as he's the one who committed US involvement if chemical weapons were used.
Click to expand...

And if he didn't make those comments the neocons would have been jumping all over him for not talking tough.
 
j-mac said:
Never said I was a "tough guy" But I am tougher than panty waste like Obama.
Click to expand...

I guess those chickenhawks are pretty 'tough' too.
 
Jack Hays said:
I am a libertarian because I value liberty above all, first, last and always.
Click to expand...

War is the biggest cause of the bloated State. If you value liberty you would be opposed to yet ANOTHER war.
 
Boo Radley said:
I wondered when this silliness would pop up.

It didn't work out well with Iraq, so I would avoid this imperialistic notion of invading countries.
Click to expand...

What part of "I don't want 'boots on the ground' " didn't you comprehend?
 
ecofarm said:
It's true and anyone can see so.

Dictators and fundies can eat a ****, democracy now.
Click to expand...

Because our State is all about supporting 'democracy!'

1_123125_123063_2111846_2116263_050426_bushabdullah_sm.jpg
 
Geoist said:
I guess those chickenhawks are pretty 'tough' too.
Click to expand...

Good, another flame thrower using inflammatory rhetoric....We didn't have enough of those in here, welcome.
 
Boo Radley said:
I wondered when this silliness would pop up.

It didn't work out well with Iraq, so I would avoid this imperialistic notion of invading countries.
Click to expand...

especially when the fight is between a despot and an Al Qaeda backed rebellion. Who do you support? Is there a "none of the above" option?
 
ecofarm said:
I volunteered to fight in the war. I like war.
Click to expand...

I have personally seen my family and friends fall apart because of Afghanistan and Iraq. Unless you are a sadist or a troll there is nothing about war to like.
 
Geoist said:
I have personally seen my family and friends fall apart because of Afghanistan and Iraq. Unless you are a sadist or a troll there is nothing about war to like.
Click to expand...

War brings freedom. I refuse world peace while any of my brothers and sisters suffer in tyranny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom