Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 182

Thread: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov claim

  1. #21
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    Then why weren't we invading Damascus in the 90s?

    And don't use the word "oil".
    Because then as now, he never threatened the US, rules you know.

  2. #22
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

    Quote Originally Posted by Painter View Post
    It was ridiculous for Bush jr. to use them as an excuse. There is no hypocrisy in Kerry's position. Kerry, although wrong, is basing his decisions from current and relevant events.


    LOL.

    The authorization for the Iraq War was debated on in Congress, written in Congress and voted on in Congress. Then sent to the President.
    Kerry, he voted yes on it. Before he turn coated our troops. What he is doing now makes him a total hypocrite, yet again.

    Should there be a statute of limitations for genocide? If so why?
    "“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama

  3. #23
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    And they are now?
    IMO, they do not. Although the President cited a "threat" to Jordan and Israel, I disagree. Syria knows that if it attacked Israel conventionally or otherwise, Israel could drive the Assad government from power on its own. It also knows that if it attacked Jordan, the U.S. would defend its strategic ally with exactly the same outcome. Assad is trying desperately to survive and has his hands full with an ongoing sectarian conflict. He is not going to launch what could only amount to suicidal endeavors. As a result, Syria poses no imminent threat to Jordan or Israel. Also considering a lack of critical U.S. interests in the outcome of the Syrian civil war, I don't support U.S. military action in Syria. That's my opinion.

  4. #24
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,632
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

    Governments all over are condemning the chemical weapons attacks and saying something should be done. Only none of them want to do it. They want the USA, as usual, to take care of business so they can then point the finger back at us and chortle, "Aha!! The US aggressors are attacking again!"

    We should not do this. If it's not important enough to the rest of the world to do it themselves, then it isn't important enough for us to do it for them. The world has had years to come together to stop this... 100,000 dead was not important enough, so I can't believe that an extra 1,500 deaths will move cowardly politicians to do so now, simply because those 1,500 people were killed by gas instead of bombs and bullets.

    Obama has backed himself into a corner with rhetoric. If he doesn't strike Syria, then gas attacks will become even more substantial, and the USA will become a laughing stock. If he does strike Syria, then everything that results from that, from the initial casualties to retaliation attacks, will be our fault. In other words, no matter what happens, we are royally screwed.

  5. #25
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

    Quote Originally Posted by Painter View Post
    Do they now?
    IMO, no. I've articulated this position consistently in suggesting that I did not support U.S. military intervention (direct or indirect) in Syria's civil war.

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    09-18-16 @ 03:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,029

    Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

    Quote Originally Posted by ItAin'tFree View Post
    LOL.

    The authorization for the Iraq War was debated on in Congress, written in Congress and voted on in Congress. Then sent to the President.
    Kerry, he voted yes on it. Before he turn coated our troops. What he is doing now makes him a total hypocrite, yet again.

    Should there be a statute of limitations for genocide? If so why?
    Nope. What was voted on was a resolution giving Bush the authority to use that response among others. The idea being that if Bush had the authority to strike with the military Saddam might be more inclined to negotiate. Congress did not vote to "go to war" with Iraq.

    This is one of many rightwing legends about Bush's vanity war.

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    IMO, they do not. Although the President cited a "threat" to Jordan and Israel, I disagree. Syria knows that if it attacked Israel conventionally or otherwise, Israel could drive the Assad government from power on its own. It also knows that if it attacked Jordan, the U.S. would defend its strategic ally with exactly the same outcome. Assad is trying desperately to survive and has his hands full with an ongoing sectarian conflict. He is not going to launch what could only amount to suicidal endeavors. As a result, Syria poses no imminent threat to Jordan or Israel. Also considering a lack of critical U.S. interests in the outcome of the Syrian civil war, I don't support U.S. military action in Syria. That's my opinion.
    I don't support US intervention in Syria either, and Israel "could drive the Assad government from power on its own" is putting it politely. They'd be suicidal to attempt anything beyond their borders - which is why I don't see them as a threat.

    We'd do much better if we treated Syria like Libya, which basically was a proxy guerrilla war to oust Qaddafi. America always profits from "enemy of my enemy" warfare.

  8. #28
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,016

    Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    Governments all over are condemning the chemical weapons attacks and saying something should be done. Only none of them want to do it. They want the USA, as usual, to take care of business so they can then point the finger back at us and chortle, "Aha!! The US aggressors are attacking again!"

    We should not do this. If it's not important enough to the rest of the world to do it themselves, then it isn't important enough for us to do it for them. The world has had years to come together to stop this... 100,000 dead was not important enough, so I can't believe that an extra 1,500 deaths will move cowardly politicians to do so now, simply because those 1,500 people were killed by gas instead of bombs and bullets.

    Obama has backed himself into a corner with rhetoric. If he doesn't strike Syria, then gas attacks will become even more substantial, and the USA will become a laughing stock. If he does strike Syria, then everything that results from that, from the initial casualties to retaliation attacks, will be our fault. In other words, no matter what happens, we are royally screwed.
    It's not our fight. We may as well be screwed for not dropping a few bombs and killing more people who did nothing to us than for doing it.
    There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
    P. J. O'Rourke

  9. #29
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,016

    Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    Congress did not vote to "go to war" with Iraq
    True. They said do what you think is best.

    It's one of the many left wing legends about how they were for it until they were against it.
    There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
    P. J. O'Rourke

  10. #30
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    10-01-17 @ 10:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    583

    Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

    Quote Originally Posted by ItAin'tFree View Post
    LOL.

    The authorization for the Iraq War was debated on in Congress, written in Congress and voted on in Congress. Then sent to the President.
    Kerry, he voted yes on it. Before he turn coated our troops. What he is doing now makes him a total hypocrite, yet again.

    Should there be a statute of limitations for genocide? If so why?
    A lot wrong here. A whole lot.

    #1 Congress was lied to just as you and I were.
    #2 Kerry is being extremely consistent. Not hypocritical. He voted yes for Bush when he was given fake evidence of WMD's
    He is voting yes now as well, when presented evidence he believes to be legit.
    #3 When Kerry voted yes to Bush it was about nuclear weapons. Now he is voting about the use of chemical weapons. They are not the same.
    #4 Kerry is a decorated military officer and has never been a turn coat to our troops. You are confused by a bogus campaign piece that was proven false after the election.
    #5 You act as though genocide was the reason for the Iraq Invasion. It was not even presented as a reason until after the invasion and after we found no WMD.
    #6 The United States is just as guilty for that "genocide" you speak of. We assisted them and turned a blind eye when they did it under Reagan. When they did it under Bush Sr. it was because we encouraged the people to "rise up" and then left them hanging. We knew what would happen when we left them.
    Would you have us bomb ourselves?
    #7 The "genocide" was not even genocide. It was the slaughter of people in one small area. Millions of them still exist. There was never any attempt to wipe them out. The correct term is "mass murder".

    Edit - Oh lol... and this too:
    Nope. What was voted on was a resolution giving Bush the authority to use that response among others. The idea being that if Bush had the authority to strike with the military Saddam might be more inclined to negotiate. Congress did not vote to "go to war" with Iraq.

    This is one of many rightwing legends about Bush's vanity war.
    Last edited by Painter; 08-30-13 at 05:29 PM.

Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •