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

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

ItAin'tFree said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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

donsutherland1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

DiAnna said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

head of joaquin said:

Congress did not vote to "go to war" with Iraq

Click to expand...

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.

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

ItAin'tFree said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Higgins86 said:

True enough! Saddam had them thats for sure and they had to end up somewhere.

Click to expand...

It's a pretty big leap to say that the weapons we alleged Saddam had and could not prove he had (though we did sell him some) have now appeared in Syria. Man, how many countries are these "WMDs" going to make us invade? And didn't they have these things or were building the capabilities back in the 90's?

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

head of joaquin said:

Because Clinton was president in the 1990s and wasn't an idiotic boob like Bush.

Click to expand...

Clinton was busy bombing other folk.

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

Heebie Jeebie said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know. That's why my post that you quoted contained the phrase, "We should not do this."

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

Ikari said:

Clinton was busy bombing other folk.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but he didn't invade anybody and didn't spend $3T giving Iran hegemony over the region.

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

DiAnna said:

Yes, I know. That's why my post that you quoted contained the phrase, "We should not do this."

Click to expand...

I wasn't disagreeing with you.

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

Heebie Jeebie said:

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.

Click to expand...

Glad to hear you backtrack and admit conservatives were wrong.

As to those against the Iraqi war, look at subsequent votes and see who supported it and who tried to get us out of that conservative mess.

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

head of joaquin said:

Glad to hear you backtrack and admit conservatives were wrong.

Click to expand...

No they aren't wrong. The authorization included military force. And he chose to use it. If Democrats in Congress didn't want him to use it then they should have excluded it.

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

donsutherland1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think portraying Syria as a rational actor is a bit misguided if we accept the premise that he has used chemical weapons when he was told that would result in action that would mean the end of his regime. If he did this he was suicidal anyway, and so he does present a clear threat to his neighbours.

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

I don't know if anyone posted this already....anyways.
U.S. Assessment of Syrian Use of Chemical Weapons + map


Cheers,
Fallen.

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

Ben K. said:

I think portraying Syria as a rational actor is a bit misguided if we accept the premise that he has used chemical weapons when he was told that would result in action that would mean the end of his regime. If he did this he was suicidal anyway, and so he does present a clear threat to his neighbours.

Click to expand...

My guess is that the disconnect occurred on account of the gap between the stated U.S. commitment and actual U.S. interests. That gap led to a conclusion that the U.S. was not likely to respond with a meaningful military operation. That earlier smaller-scale uses of chemical weapons triggered no U.S. response might also have added to the confidence in that calculation. Deterrence can only succeed if a nation is willing and able to act and if the country being deterred believes that it is willing and able to act. In this case, there likely were doubts about the willingness of the U.S. to act and deterrence failed.

In reading the declassified intelligence summary, one of the arguments made is quite interesting. The relevant language is as follows:

In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack.

If, in fact, this was the case and if, in fact, the U.S. is striving for a doctrine of non-use of chemical weapons, it would be fair to ask why the U.S. government didn't privately convey to President Assad that the U.S. was aware of such preparations and then warn that such an attack would result in severe consequences? If this information is correct, it would seem that there was an opportunity to at least try to deter the attack. Deterrence entails far fewer risks and far fewer unintended consequences than military action. As the report makes no mention of warnings toward that end and no news reports to date document such warnings, it would seem that an opportunity to try to head off a chemical weapons attack was missed, assuming that the information related to these preparations is accurate. Without access to the classified data and full context of what is believed to be known, the conditional language "if" is necessary.

Of course, it might be plausible that the U.S. didn't put the signals together to reach its conclusion until after the attack. That development would reflect a continuing challenge facing the U.S. intelligence community where "signals" are not noticed until after the fact.

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

Higgins86 said:

Yes how noble of Parliament! I'm sure it had nothign to do with keeping their noses clean with elections coming soon.

Click to expand...

Maybe, or maybe it is because they know what would be coming next--ground troops, I mean "peace keepers".

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

Ikari said:

It's a pretty big leap to say that the weapons we alleged Saddam had and could not prove he had (though we did sell him some) have now appeared in Syria. Man, how many countries are these "WMDs" going to make us invade? And didn't they have these things or were building the capabilities back in the 90's?

Click to expand...

It is a big leap but it is entirely plausable. The problem isnt countries having WMD'S its when they threaten to use them or actually use them in this case and it was the same with Saddam. If we allow dictaorships to use chemcial weapons at their own pleasure when does it end? To we draw a new line in the sand? Maybe tactical nukes?

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

Gipper said:

People scoffed when Bush said Iraq was bypassing UN inspectors by moving WMDs to Syria...

Click to expand...

History never fails to come back and bite the Libbos in the ass.

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

Higgins86 said:

It is a big leap but it is entirely plausable. The problem isnt countries having WMD'S its when they threaten to use them or actually use them in this case and it was the same with Saddam. If we allow dictaorships to use chemcial weapons at their own pleasure when does it end? To we draw a new line in the sand? Maybe tactical nukes?

Click to expand...

Big leaps are not the basis for foreign invasion. Sorry. And if they use chemical weapons, it's not our problem. It's been over a decade already, I don't want to tack on another decade and kill off more Americans for not our problem.

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

Jetboogieman said:

My issue with this is simple.

The rebels want the west to get involved.

The only way that is going to happen is if Assad uses chemical weapons.

Assad does not want the west to get involved.

The only way that is going to happen is if he uses Chemical Weapons.

Who has more to gain from their use here?

That question should lead us to be extremely cautious.

While I hate Assads guts and hope he gets Gaddafi'd... I also don't want to support terrorists and it seems that's exactly what a fair number of these Rebels in Syria are.

Click to expand...

The other side of that coin, is that Assad believes that the West has the stomach to get involved...so far, he's winning that bet.

Another thing to consider: what better way to end the civil war, by starting a shooting war with Israel. If that happens, the rebels will drop what they're doing to take advantage of the opportunity to actually go to war with Israel.

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

Higgins86 said:

True enough! Saddam had them thats for sure and they had to end up somewhere.

Click to expand...

Saddam had them before 1991 thats for sure.

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

Higgins86 said:

U.N. inspectors start leaving Syria; Obama meets with security team - CNN.com



US seems to have lots of evidence pointing to the Syrian Government. UN inspectors should be getting back with their findings soon.

Click to expand...

The only thing the UN will say is that there was a chemical attack and approx where it came from and how it was delivered .. maybe, and nothing on who did it.

And the so called evidence is about as credible as the evidence Bush showed us about Saddam.

The very fact he has these exact numbers on the amount of dead, means that part if not all of the evidence comes from the opposition, who should not be trusted.

The only thing that I see as damaging to the Assad government is the supposed phone intercept... although I am sceptical since there is no context what so ever.

I want to punish the correct criminals, not just those we dont like.

We shall see what the UN finds out.

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

Moot said:

Saddam had them before 1991 thats for sure.

Click to expand...

And they were destroyed after the gulf war according the head of the Iraq WMD project who defected to the Germans in the mid 1990s... that is a well known fact.

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

Ikari said:

Big leaps are not the basis for foreign invasion. Sorry. And if they use chemical weapons, it's not our problem. It's been over a decade already, I don't want to tack on another decade and kill off more Americans for not our problem.

Click to expand...

As world leaders it is your problem. Like I said if you allow a country like Syria to fire chemical weapons whats stopping other countries following their lead?

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

PeteEU said:

The only thing the UN will say is that there was a chemical attack and approx where it came from and how it was delivered .. maybe, and nothing on who did it.

And the so called evidence is about as credible as the evidence Bush showed us about Saddam.

The very fact he has these exact numbers on the amount of dead, means that part if not all of the evidence comes from the opposition, who should not be trusted.

The only thing that I see as damaging to the Assad government is the supposed phone intercept... although I am sceptical since there is no context what so ever.

I want to punish the correct criminals, not just those we dont like.

We shall see what the UN finds out.

Click to expand...

Too be honest Pete it wont matter what evidence the US or the UN put out there because people are only going to claim that the information is false. They will say that the UN is useless and big bad America forged the evidence etc.