• 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!

Obama Warns Syria on Chemical Weapons

MarineTpartier said:
Who cares if he does use chemical weapons? Let him use them. It's their country, not ours. If he starts using them on America, then we go in.
Click to expand...

Because its a moral travesty, and because it sets the precedent of the utilization of weapons of mass destruction specifically chemical weapons on a conventional scale in the modern era. That is a bad thing.
 
John.NoseTip said:
It would be nice if we lived in world that punished things such as war crimes but we don't. The outrage over war crimes is strictly selective to push a political agenda. Much like when we ignored Saddam using chemical weapons against Iran in 1980's. Also, when it comes to Syria don't look for Obama to get outraged over the item below






I say Obama should get another peace prize he's really been gang busters on peace. What's worse is I think Romney will be an even bigger Warmonger than Obama.
Click to expand...


No one is saying that the rebels are paragons of virtue. What people are saying is that Assad is the cause of this conflict as a direct result of his Baath party dictatorship, and that people are rising up to combat that oppression. Defeats in the field, frustration, and pent up anger easily explain the less than virtuous tactics of many Syrian militias. That being said its still pretty clear to me which side I'm on, and which side I want to win.
 
Sherman123 said:
Because its a moral travesty, and because it sets the precedent of the utilization of weapons of mass destruction specifically chemical weapons on a conventional scale in the modern era. That is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

How many have been killed there already? 15000--20,000? How is the method of death more morally repulsive if done by chemical weapons than by conventional ones? Apparently, Assad can slaughter at will and in any number just so long as he uses Obama-approved methods. That seems more the 'moral travesty' to me.
 
Fletch said:
How many have been killed there already? 15000--20,000? How is the method of death more morally repulsive if done by chemical weapons than by conventional ones? Apparently, Assad can slaughter at will and in any number just so long as he uses Obama-approved methods. That seems more the 'moral travesty' to me.
Click to expand...

You have a point.
 
Fletch said:
How many have been killed there already? 15000--20,000? How is the method of death more morally repulsive if done by chemical weapons than by conventional ones? Apparently, Assad can slaughter at will and in any number just so long as he uses Obama-approved methods. That seems more the 'moral travesty' to me.
Click to expand...

It is a moral travesty already and we should intervene and the President has shown a total lack of leadership thus far. However it is fair to note that chemical weapons have been regarded by most of mankind has particularly heinous and unique weapons due to their ability to deal mass casualties in a quick manner and their sinister method of killing. That may be subjective, but what matters is that it is the perception.
 
Sherman123 said:
Evidence that President Obama isn't concocting a plan to work with the rebels so they can acquire a chemical weapon from fortified Syrian stockpiles and then figure out a way to covertly and anonymously use them on a civilian target to inflict mass casualties so that the US can then have an artificial cassus belli to intervene? No I do not have that evidence, because it is a conspiracy theory of the first class.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

So now I no that you condemn/insult people without any hard evidence.

Noted.


And btw, my theory is that Obama could smuggle chemical weapons to the rebels from American sources - not Syrian ones.

I am not saying he will. But I believe if Obama thought he could get away with it by causing a few dozen more Syrian deaths (there have already been hundreds and hundreds die already - what's a few more to a cold hearted POTUS) through a faked Syrian government chemical weapon attack; that gave him the excuse he wants to send troops in to Syria; which would then result (inevitably) in a quick, decisive U.S. victory and guarantee him his re-election?

Yes, I think almost any POTUS would do that in a heart beat.

This is the same guy who has approved of rendition, kept Gitmo open, assassinated Americans without trial and deliberately ramped up a useless war in Afghanistan that has caused thousands and thousands more deaths - not to mention all the Americans that have died in it.

And you think he will think twice about indirectly killing a few faceless no names in a Syrian civil war that has already claimed many times more deaths to help secure the White House for 4 more years?

Okaaaaaaaay.

Have I got a deal on some waterfront land in Japan's Fukishima district for you.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
Sherman123 said:
No one is saying that the rebels are paragons of virtue. What people are saying is that Assad is the cause of this conflict as a direct result of his Baath party dictatorship, and that people are rising up to combat that oppression. Defeats in the field, frustration, and pent up anger easily explain the less than virtuous tactics of many Syrian militias. That being said its still pretty clear to me which side I'm on, and which side I want to win.
Click to expand...

You seem to be making a distinction without a differnce. The premise I made was we really don't give a damn about "war crimes" of any kind as long as our side wins as demonstrated by our past and current actions.

I really don't buy we are doing it for democracy either. While we would be ok with right kind of democracy emerging anywhere I really don't believe that our love for democracy is the reason we are in Syria. The Iran issue is obvious but even Iran is really just a means to an ends.

Who knows if I'm right but looking at America, NATO or the Anglo-Empire the most obvious thing that I notice is BRICS nearing the point ,if not already there, of being able to hand us our a** economically speaking. We still have have a few advantages specifically control of the international banking systems, military firepower and the petrodollar. We are really bankrupt on ideas, infrastructure and production of goods although we are still fairly strong on farming. Given this perspective I really don't believe Syria or any of our recent actions are about democracy or the oppression in those places. Instead I believe it is about the creation of mini-states by stirring up sectarian violence. In a nutshell we can't produce more brains than India, we can't be more productive than China and Russia has brains and resources therefore we choose to try and create strategic advantage through military force. While those tactics may work I would rather have our advantages through more brains and productivity.
 
John.NoseTip said:
You seem to be making a distinction without a differnce. The premise I made was we really don't give a damn about "war crimes" of any kind as long as our side wins as demonstrated by our past and current actions.

I really don't buy we are doing it for democracy either. While we would be ok with right kind of democracy emerging anywhere I really don't believe that our love for democracy is the reason we are in Syria. The Iran issue is obvious but even Iran is really just a means to an ends.

Who knows if I'm right but looking at America, NATO or the Anglo-Empire the most obvious thing that I notice is BRICS nearing the point ,if not already there, of being able to hand us our a** economically speaking. We still have have a few advantages specifically control of the international banking systems, military firepower and the petrodollar. We are really bankrupt on ideas, infrastructure and production of goods although we are still fairly strong on farming. Given this perspective I really don't believe Syria or any of our recent actions are about democracy or the oppression in those places. Instead I believe it is about the creation of mini-states by stirring up sectarian violence. In a nutshell we can't produce more brains than India, we can't be more productive than China and Russia has brains and resources therefore we choose to try and create strategic advantage through military force. While those tactics may work I would rather have our advantages through more brains and productivity.
Click to expand...

We do care about war-crimes, there is simply an enormous difference in scale between the crimes committed by the rebels and their choice of targets, and the crimes being committed by Syrian security forces. There is also a profound difference between their motivations and overall goals, and the environment they are operating in. These two things generally inform us with regard to picking a side. Furthermore there is nothing wrong with utilitarianism in pursuit of a good cause.

Furthermore we aren't in Syria, and we should be supporting the rebels because of a vigorous pursuit of a democratic agenda. This agenda is in our moral and strategic interests as it cultivates a more peaceful region and undercuts our opponents in places like Iran. We aren't tainted because we get benefit from something that we do.

I also don't know what to say about your final paragraph. I don't believe it is anywhere near the case that we are having our 'asses handed to us' economically, I think that is a grossly misleading statement. I also don't know what the Anglo-Empire is, but I'm just going to presume you are talking about the developed world i.e the US, Europe, Canada, South Korea, Japan, etc. In which case yes we have many advantages, but I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. Of course we try and create strategic advantage with military force when possible, what else would we do? But part of our strategic objectives include fostering democratic states which act as a blunt against autocratic influence from China and Russia, and furthermore by tightening relations and building alliances with democratic powers... like India.
 
DA60 said:
Exactly.

So now I no that you condemn/insult people without any hard evidence.

Noted.


And btw, my theory is that Obama could smuggle chemical weapons to the rebels from American sources - not Syrian ones.

I am not saying he will. But I believe if Obama thought he could get away with it by causing a few dozen more Syrian deaths (there have already been hundreds and hundreds die already - what's a few more to a cold hearted POTUS) through a faked Syrian government chemical weapon attack; that gave him the excuse he wants to send troops in to Syria; which would then result (inevitably) in a quick, decisive U.S. victory and guarantee him his re-election?

Yes, I think almost any POTUS would do that in a heart beat.

This is the same guy who has approved of rendition, kept Gitmo open, assassinated Americans without trial and deliberately ramped up a useless war in Afghanistan that has caused thousands and thousands more deaths - not to mention all the Americans that have died in it.

And you think he will think twice about indirectly killing a few faceless no names in a Syrian civil war that has already claimed many times more deaths to help secure the White House for 4 more years?

Okaaaaaaaay.

Have I got a deal on some waterfront land in Japan's Fukishima district for you.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

You are asserting a conspiracy theory, a pretty outrageous one at that, the onus isn't on me to prove anything.

My evidence is the present state of affairs and released information. I think it is ludicrous to believe that with as many opportunities the President has had to get involved in Syria (with rebels and regional governments directly asking for military assistance) he would potentially destroy all US influence and credibility by orchestrating a chemical war crime in Syria, in what would be if uncovered one of the most disastrous US foreign policy misstep of the past half century, just so he could intervene. If the President wants to intervene and push US intervention he has Western European support, he has Gulf support, he has Turkish support, and he has of course support from the FSA. He doesn't need to gas some children to do it
 
Sherman123 said:
You are asserting a conspiracy theory, a pretty outrageous one at that, the onus isn't on me to prove anything.
Click to expand...
Wrong pal.

You were the one that stated that I am 'ludicrously paranoid'...you initiated the slander.

It is up to you to prove the factual basis for your slander - and since you admit you cannot, then it is you that we now know goes around defaming others without proof.

If you had said, 'I disagree with you.'; Or, 'I think that theory is totally wrong.'; fine.

But you didn't.

You chose to say I am 'ludicrously paranoid' without a shred of unbiased, factual evidence to back it up.

As I said...noted.

I am done with you on this.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Wrong pal.

You were the one that stated that I am 'ludicrously paranoid'...you initiated the slander.

It is up to you to prove the factual basis for your slander - and since you admit you cannot, then it is you that we now know goes around defaming others without proof.

If you had said, 'I disagree with you.'; Or, 'I think that theory is totally wrong.'; fine.

But you didn't.

You chose to say I am 'ludicrously paranoid' without a shred of unbiased, factual evidence to back it up.

As I said...noted.

I am done with you on this.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

It is ludicrously paranoid and conspiratorial. There is no need to say 'originally you said' because I stand exactly behind what I said. The factual basis for my 'slander' is self-evident. You think the President would orchestrate a scenario in which he abets or allows the Syrian rebels to acquire chemical weapons and delivery systems from a fortified Syrian facility to then disperse so that civilians can be murdered wholesale in some town to give the US pretext to intervene. That is crazy, and it is paranoid. Sorry if that's news to you.
 
Sherman123 said:
It is ludicrously paranoid and conspiratorial. There is no need to say 'originally you said' because I stand exactly behind what I said. The factual basis for my 'slander' is self-evident. You think the President would orchestrate a scenario in which he abets or allows the Syrian rebels to acquire chemical weapons and delivery systems from a fortified Syrian facility to then disperse so that civilians can be murdered wholesale in some town to give the US pretext to intervene. That is crazy, and it is paranoid. Sorry if that's news to you.
Click to expand...

Ahhh....no.

The Prez gets the CIA to smuggle into the rebels (probably from a third party so it cannot be traced back to Washington) whatever the minimum number of mortar shells containing a chemical weapon (that Syria is believed to possess) that would be required to kill about a dozen people in a tiny village would be. Though make sure the mortar/shells are standard issue for the government forces so it appears they perpetrated the attack (I say mortar because I assume the rebels do not have proper artillery).
Afterwards, get the rebels to scream bloody murder, get tons of film/pictures of the devastation, make sure at least one 'expert' is conveniently on hand to confirm that indeed chemical weapons were used.
And presto - a shocking international incident that forces the Russians/Chinese to back off their support for Assad PLUS Obama has his excuse to go in and bomb the Syrian government forces back to the stone age and guarantee the eventual overthrow of Assad. Plus, rid America of one of Iran's most loyal allies at the same time.
But the real prize would be a large rise in popular support among American undecided voters (like during the Egyptian civil war) which practically guarantees four more years for Obama.

And all it cost Obama is the deaths of about a dozen nameless Syrians (sure, that is a dozen too many to most people - but these are politicians, they are not like 'most' people, imo).

And you honestly think that if presented with that scenario that almost any POTUS would not jump at the chance?

Okay....let me know about your decision on that waterfront property in Fukishima.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
Sherman123 said:
Because its a moral travesty, and because it sets the precedent of the utilization of weapons of mass destruction specifically chemical weapons on a conventional scale in the modern era. That is a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Saddam Hussein used chemicals on his own country. No one in the region saw that as a starting gun to use theirs. In addition, Iraq didn't even use chemical weapons on us. Is it a moral travesty? Yes, it is. Is it OUR moral travesty? No, its not. We've had moral travesties in this country, no one's interfered with them. What makes us so special that we can do that to someone else?
 
Sherman123 said:
It is ludicrously paranoid and conspiratorial. There is no need to say 'originally you said' because I stand exactly behind what I said. The factual basis for my 'slander' is self-evident. You think the President would orchestrate a scenario in which he abets or allows the Syrian rebels to acquire chemical weapons and delivery systems from a fortified Syrian facility to then disperse so that civilians can be murdered wholesale in some town to give the US pretext to intervene. That is crazy, and it is paranoid. Sorry if that's news to you.
Click to expand...

Or, to put it another way...over 1,300 Americans have died in Iraq since Obama took office.

And you honestly think he is going to suddenly go all squeamish over the prospect of 10-12 Syrian civilians being killed just because they died through chemical weapons if he thinks this will give him the excuse he needs to start bombing Assad?

And remember, he is not killing these people. Their own people are doing the killing. He is just furnishing them with a means that the rebels can win the war.

In fact, I bet you the rebels could probably find a dozen volunteers to throw down their lives to act as the 'innocent civilians' that are killed by chemical weapons so as to buy their people a chance at freedom from Assad.
Actually, I guarantee you they could find a dozen potential martyrs to volunteer.

You gotta learn to start to think outside the box.


Have a nice day.
 
DA60 said:
Ahhh....no.

The Prez gets the CIA to smuggle into the rebels (probably from a third party so it cannot be traced back to Washington) whatever the minimum number of mortar shells containing a chemical weapon (that Syria is believed to possess) that would be required to kill about a dozen people in a tiny village would be. Though make sure the mortar/shells are standard issue for the government forces so it appears they perpetrated the attack (I say mortar because I assume the rebels do not have proper artillery).
Afterwards, get the rebels to scream bloody murder, get tons of film/pictures of the devastation, make sure at least one 'expert' is conveniently on hand to confirm that indeed chemical weapons were used.
And presto - a shocking international incident that forces the Russians/Chinese to back off their support for Assad PLUS Obama has his excuse to go in and bomb the Syrian government forces back to the stone age and guarantee the eventual overthrow of Assad. Plus, rid America of one of Iran's most loyal allies at the same time.
But the real prize would be a large rise in popular support among American undecided voters (like during the Egyptian civil war) which practically guarantees four more years for Obama.

And all it cost Obama is the deaths of about a dozen nameless Syrians (sure, that is a dozen too many to most people - but these are politicians, they are not like 'most' people, imo).

And you honestly think that if presented with that scenario that almost any POTUS would not jump at the chance?

Okay....let me know about your decision on that waterfront property in Fukishima.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that is ludicrously paranoid. The President of the United States is going to smuggle some chemical binary shells to the Syrian rebels, so they can gas a village of a few dozen people, and pass it off as the Syrian governments work. That is insane. If the President wanted to get more aggressively involved in Syria he could. He has FSA and SNC representatives hounding the halls of the State Department asking for money, guns, and even a no fly zone and buffer zone from Turkey. There is regional support from the Gulf States and Turkey, there is support from Europe in the form of France and the UK, etc. He doesn't need to risk the destruction of US foreign policy credibility, and the implosion of his administration, by carrying out this insanely convoluted plan that might not even yield anything.

Despite what partisan rancor might suggest elected official tend to not be psychotic nefarious individuals with spy thriller film plots that they want to enact.

Furthermore if ANY President would jump at the chance why hasn't it happened? It's been more than 15 months of fighting, and at least 3 or 4 months since we heard about the dispersal of Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles to more secure locations.

I repeat: Ludicrous, paranoid, and conspiratorial.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Saddam Hussein used chemicals on his own country. No one in the region saw that as a starting gun to use theirs. In addition, Iraq didn't even use chemical weapons on us. Is it a moral travesty? Yes, it is. Is it OUR moral travesty? No, its not. We've had moral travesties in this country, no one's interfered with them. What makes us so special that we can do that to someone else?
Click to expand...

It was a moral travesty then too and aroused international outrage and contributed massively to the shut off of Saddam Hussein from the international community. But you're right something should have been done in 1993, we shouldn't have waited until 2003 to put a stop to those crimes and their legacy. Furthermore what makes us special is that we are the democratic hegemon and we have a unique role and position to enforce a better world order, and it is in our moral and strategic interests to do so.
 
DA60 said:
Or, to put it another way...over 1,300 Americans have died in Iraq since Obama took office.

And you honestly think he is going to suddenly go all squeamish over the prospect of 10-12 Syrian civilians being killed just because they died through chemical weapons if he thinks this will give him the excuse he needs to start bombing Assad?

And remember, he is not killing these people. Their own people are doing the killing. He is just furnishing them with a means that the rebels can win the war.

In fact, I bet you the rebels could probably find a dozen volunteers to throw down their lives to act as the 'innocent civilians' that are killed by chemical weapons so as to buy their people a chance at freedom from Assad.
Actually, I guarantee you they could find a dozen potential martyrs to volunteer.

You gotta learn to start to think outside the box.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

If you cannot see the difference between a President administering over a war in which Americans die, and smuggling weapons of mass destruction to a rebel group so that they can engineer a cassus belli for intervention then I don't know what to say. I'm also supremely unconvinced that this sea-change you are talking about would happen if only 12 civilians were killed in a chemical attack.
 
DA60 said:
Or, to put it another way...over 1,300 Americans have died in Iraq since Obama took office.

And you honestly think he is going to suddenly go all squeamish over the prospect of 10-12 Syrian civilians being killed just because they died through chemical weapons if he thinks this will give him the excuse he needs to start bombing Assad?

And remember, he is not killing these people. Their own people are doing the killing. He is just furnishing them with a means that the rebels can win the war.

In fact, I bet you the rebels could probably find a dozen volunteers to throw down their lives to act as the 'innocent civilians' that are killed by chemical weapons so as to buy their people a chance at freedom from Assad.
Actually, I guarantee you they could find a dozen potential martyrs to volunteer.

You gotta learn to start to think outside the box.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

You say this as if Obama needs some sort of reason to further assist rebels. Obama has about 150 new reasons every day to assist rebels. If he really want to push for a more active position in this civil war, I don't think he'd make it such a convoluted process. It's not like the Assad regime has been taking cookies from the cookie jar when nobody was looking.

Also, this whole statement from Obama pushes me to expect a headline like this in the coming months: "Obama warns McDonald's not to sell Bigmac's; he wants people getting obese through other items on McDonald's menu"
 
Sherman123 said:
If you cannot see the difference between a President administering over a war in which Americans die, and smuggling weapons of mass destruction to a rebel group so that they can engineer a cassus belli for intervention then I don't know what to say. I'm also supremely unconvinced that this sea-change you are talking about would happen if only 12 civilians were killed in a chemical attack.
Click to expand...
So which do you think is morally worse for Obama to do, sending 1300 Americans to their deaths in a pointless war or helping Syrian rebels overthrow Assad by providing the means to gas volunteer martyrs to death?

I say the former...by about a hundred times.

What say you?
 
Last edited:
Sherman123 said:
It was a moral travesty then too and aroused international outrage and contributed massively to the shut off of Saddam Hussein from the international community. But you're right something should have been done in 1993, we shouldn't have waited until 2003 to put a stop to those crimes and their legacy. Furthermore what makes us special is that we are the democratic hegemon and we have a unique role and position to enforce a better world order, and it is in our moral and strategic interests to do so.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a slightly watered down version of something Hitler might have said.

A 'better world order'?

Gitmo, torture, rendition, assassinating Americans without trial on the President's whim, the Patriot Act, wire-tapping US citizens, signing NDAA which allows future President's to detain Americans indefinitely without trial, bombing other countries that kills innocent civilians America is not at war with whenever the President feels like it, etc..

That's your idea of a 'better world order'?

Noted.
 
Last edited:
Sherman123 said:
Yes, and that is ludicrously paranoid. The President of the United States is going to smuggle some chemical binary shells to the Syrian rebels, so they can gas a village of a few dozen people, and pass it off as the Syrian governments work. That is insane. If the President wanted to get more aggressively involved in Syria he could. He has FSA and SNC representatives hounding the halls of the State Department asking for money, guns, and even a no fly zone and buffer zone from Turkey. There is regional support from the Gulf States and Turkey, there is support from Europe in the form of France and the UK, etc. He doesn't need to risk the destruction of US foreign policy credibility, and the implosion of his administration, by carrying out this insanely convoluted plan that might not even yield anything.

Despite what partisan rancor might suggest elected official tend to not be psychotic nefarious individuals with spy thriller film plots that they want to enact.

Furthermore if ANY President would jump at the chance why hasn't it happened? It's been more than 15 months of fighting, and at least 3 or 4 months since we heard about the dispersal of Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles to more secure locations.

I repeat: Ludicrous, paranoid, and conspiratorial.
Click to expand...

Can you or can you not provide links to unbiased, factual evidence that what I am suggesting is 100% 'off the table' insofar as Obama is concerned?

Yes or no?


Btw - it has not happened (and I have never typed that it would happen, btw....just that it could) because Obama was a) not desperate enough and b) now apparently is which is why he made the statement he did so he sets up additional excuses to enter the conflict.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
So which do you think is morally worse for Obama to do, sending 1300 Americans to their deaths in a pointless war or helping Syrian rebels overthrow Assad by providing the means to gas volunteer martyrs to death?

I say the former...by about a hundred times.

What say you?
Click to expand...

He didn't send 1,300 Americans to their deaths, he led a country in the midst of a war. I don't like the President, and don't plan on voting for him, but I refuse your characterization. Also your comparison is silly, there is a difference between leading a war which is judged to be legitimate, and engaging in the sort of convoluted nefarious action you are talking about.
 
DA60 said:
Sounds like a slightly watered down version of something Hitler might have said.

A 'better world order'?

Gitmo, torture, rendition, assassinating Americans without trial on the President's whim, the Patriot Act, wire-tapping US citizens, signing NDAA which allows future President's to detain Americans indefinitely without trial, bombing other countries that kills innocent civilians America is not at war with whenever the President feels like it, etc..

That's your idea of a 'better world order'?

Noted.
Click to expand...

Yes a better world order. A world order in which autocratic regimes are pressured and in which democratic regimes are secured and expanded throughout the globe. A world led by the US as the head of the democratic alliance is the best that currently exists. Also yes utilitarianism is appropriate in pursuit of this objective. That being said I absolutely do not accept your definition or moral valuation on the things you listed.
 
VanceMack said:
As soon as he said it the Russians and Chinese bitchslapped him back into his corner. And made him them fix them a sammich. And not some healthy tofu and greens wrap like what Michelle makes him eat...a REAL MANS sammich.
Click to expand...

Obama is black. Not for nothin' but we invented the sammich yo.
 
DA60 said:
Can you or can you not provide links to unbiased, factual evidence that what I am suggesting is 100% 'off the table' insofar as Obama is concerned?

Yes or no?


Btw - it has not happened (and I have never typed that it would happen, btw....just that it could) because Obama was a) not desperate enough and b) now apparently is which is why he made the statement he did so he sets up additional excuses to enter the conflict.
Click to expand...

That isn't how this works. You alleged a ludicrous conspiracy theory, of course there are no links saying "President Obama NOT planning to smuggle chemical weapons to the FSA", there is however the deafening evidence coming from the present situation and precedent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom