• 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]

Um, are you claiming that Syria doesn't posess chemical weapons--AKA, "WMD"?

do you mean saddam never developed such weapons but bush believed in his bluff ?
 
do you mean saddam never developed such weapons but bush believed in his bluff ?

No, I don't...but, as I said before, it's a known, proven and acknowledged fact that Syria has chemical weapons.
 
do you mean saddam never developed such weapons but bush believed in his bluff ?

A lot of people believed in his bluff.

As much as I didn't like Bush and his war fought on the US MasterCard, I still have to acknowledge that it wasn't all Bush. \

\
 
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."

How does success or failure equate with a ratcheting up of involvement? Libya is the Wild Wild West, Mali is in disarray, Egypt is being led by the MB, then there is Sudan, and lets not forget Yemen.
 
Sarin in the corpses.:shock:

Heya JH. :2wave: Do you think it is possible that the Rebels may have got a small quantity of chemical weapons thru their rebellion while killing and taking out Assads Troops? Considering these Chemical Weapons are stored and located in many places throughout Syria?

Is it possible that Assads officers may have used some but was not given an Order by Assad? What about those that were being overran by Al Nusra and the FSA and were fighting a stand your ground situation.....fight or die?
 
And couldn't I have found this concerning Iraq and any number of things later shown wrong? Do you deny this?

(BTW, that's the same question I asked earlier and your link doesn't answer it.)

Of course Syria has chemical weapons....

“But, as current events attest, we must stay vigilant. The threat of chemical weapons persists, and eight States remain outside the Convention. Until the Convention is universal and the last stockpiles have been destroyed, our debt to the victims of chemical warfare will remain unpaid.”

Earlier this month, Mr. Ban appealed to the 188 States Parties to the Convention to do all in their power to bring on board the eight nations that still have not signed on – Angola, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Israel, Myanmar, Somalia, South Sudan, and Syria.

United Nations News Centre - Syria: Ban renews call for on-site access for chemical weapons probe team
 
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.

Id rather us be cautious. You know last time we did military actions with "chemical weapons" didnt go out to well now did it?
 
Gordon: What have your investigations revealed about the level of commitment and investment in Bio-warfare programs by the Syrian military establishment?

Dekker: Contrary to how the US State Department and other agencies tend to downplay the sophistication of the Syrian biological and nuclear programs, they are very advanced. Syria has always had the most advanced chemical weapons program in the Middle East. The US and other western agencies have in a sense been distracted by this, but their biological programs and the “concept of use” are robust. Syria’s biological weapons capability today is closely tied to the former and current Soviet and Russian programs respectively, the DPRK, Iran and the former Iraq regime. A major concern is their strategic concept of use - which has gone from one of ‘special weapons’ to incorporation into their ‘conventional arsenal.’ That is a significant shift and one that seems to have eluded the US. The Syrians run their biological programs out of the Syrian Scientific Research Council (SSRC) in Damascus. They have separate wings for separate pathogens. They also have a number of programs running in Aleppo. The Syrians are 100% committed to deniable operations as their modus operandi. Biological weapons, particularly those which might occur naturally, are the ultimate in deniability, for example, their cryptosporidium program for force reduction. The Wednesday Report noted a few years ago that in terms of the Syrian anthrax program, Syria has extensive expertise in the industrial cultivation of germs and viruses for the civilian production of anthrax (and smallpox) vaccines. It also noted that Russian experts, contracted by Syria, are apparently helping them to cultivate a highly virulent anthrax germ for installation in missile warheads. Their pharmaceutical infrastructure is fully integrated with their defense structure. Syrians cannot reach parity with US and Israeli conventional weapons. However, they view their bio-chemical arsenal as part of a normal weapons program. This is a huge shift in thinking by the Syrian military. It means they condone the use of biological pathogens as 'offensive' weapons. NATO and the United States should be very concerned about that re-designation.

Syria's Bio-Warfare Threat: an interview with Dr. Jill Dekker > Jerry Gordon

Now come on people....This isn't Iraq, nor is it any contrived chem threat...This is a known player in weaponized chem/bio agents. And frankly, I find it highly dangerous, and suspicious that seemingly intelligent people would deny that they even have such weapons....It is silliness, and those trying to deny it are being plain foolish.
 
Id rather us be cautious. You know last time we did military actions with "chemical weapons" didnt go out to well now did it?

Hopefully we learned our lesson and don't let them leave the country we are going into...But, I stand by the fact that I am NOT talking about invading anyone. I don't want American troops going in...But to compare Syria to Iraq under Saddam is not even serious discussion.
 
Hopefully we learned our lesson and don't let them leave the country we are going into...But, I stand by the fact that I am NOT talking about invading anyone. I don't want American troops going in...But to compare Syria to Iraq under Saddam is not even serious discussion.

Not saying its similar im saying invading on those grounds is not a smart move.
 
Hopefully we learned our lesson and don't let them leave the country we are going into...But, I stand by the fact that I am NOT talking about invading anyone. I don't want American troops going in...But to compare Syria to Iraq under Saddam is not even serious discussion.

Then what are you talking about? You guys were talking earlier in the thread about how "Obama won't back up his tough words...that's why nobody takes us seriously."

So how do you want him to back it up if not with force?
 
Hopefully we learned our lesson and don't let them leave the country we are going into...But, I stand by the fact that I am NOT talking about invading anyone. I don't want American troops going in...But to compare Syria to Iraq under Saddam is not even serious discussion.

Let's see... the contention seems to be that Iraq must have had WMD, because we said so. When we invaded, we didn't find any. Therefore, he must have sent them to Syria to get rid of them.

In other words, faced with an invasion by the biggest military on the planet, he sent his most devastating weapons to a neighboring nation to get rid of them.

Somehow, I just don't see the logic of all that.
 
Then what are you talking about? You guys were talking earlier in the thread about how "Obama won't back up his tough words...that's why nobody takes us seriously."

So how do you want him to back it up if not with force?

I already laid this out earlier in the thread....please go back and re read it.
 
I'm purdy sure that's NOT what they told their soldiers, in Afghanistan. :roll:

Sure they did. Soviet troops were routinely indoctrinated with political propaganda just as American troops are.

Much like American troops are often told they are fighting for "freedom," Soviet troops were told that they were fighting for the worldwide communist revolution -- which they associated with freedom as well.
 
Let's see... the contention seems to be that Iraq must have had WMD, because we said so. When we invaded, we didn't find any. Therefore, he must have sent them to Syria to get rid of them.

In other words, faced with an invasion by the biggest military on the planet, he sent his most devastating weapons to a neighboring nation to get rid of them.

Somehow, I just don't see the logic of all that.

NO, that wasn't the 'contention'. Nor was it some kook theory..It was a fact that we noted convoy's crossing into Syria days before the invasion. It is a fact that flights departing Iraq, and landing in Damascus...It is a fact that a top General in Saddam's army testifies that NBC tech, and weaponry were moved pre war to Syria.

There is plenty of logic there Ditto for those not blinded by their hatred of the administration of the time. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom