• 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!

Patrick Buchanan says chemical attack false flag.

NIMBY said:
I'll move your post back to the 1930's when Repubs were appeasing Germany led by Prescott Bush. I just heard Rumsfeld blame Powell for the presentation to the UN. It's never-ending with these LIARs.
Click to expand...

Wow! Really? Rummy's punking Powell.
 
Cyrylek said:
So...Let me try to understand the logic here: Assad would never gas his opponents because that would mean confrontation with Washington and Paris. He was framed. (Unless, of course, he thinks that's what we would think).

But this is all sheer nonsense.

Comrade Assad is fighting for his life, in a brutal civil war. He is the last of the three Baathist dictators standing. The other two - Saddam and Qaddafi - died in a manner that leaves very little room for wishful thinking - or for any ten-steps-ahead strategy games. This is not a party of chess. This is about survival: there will be no legal rigmarole, like with Mubarak, or Pinochet, or even Todor bleeping Zhivkov - not all crimes are created equal, and Bashar knows exactly where his Daddy's regime sits, in the spectrum of the 20th century tyrannies.

Put yourself into the shoes of the thug: What do you have to lose? You absolutely have to inflict the maximum damage possible onto your opponents, NOW. By any means available.

What happens later - who knows? Did the world unite to overthrow Saddam after he - undeniably and openly - gassed the Kurds? Eh, not exactly.

Will your milk brothers, mighty Comrades Pu and Xi save the day? Maybe. Maybe not.

It is a gamble, sure. But in a knife fight, you don't theorize about what may happen half an hour from now. You block the other guy's moves, as effectively as you can.
Click to expand...

No! Wrong. He is being accused of using chemical weapons on his civilians, not the Islamist extremists that are destroying his country. See post #24.
 
You're asking me to explain the actions of a madman. And you're refuswing to go with what the Republican grown-ups in the Senate have seen for evidence. That is why this forum is called Debate Politics. Where a piece of garbage like Rep. Joe Wilson can bring up five or six phony scandals at the hearing today.
Montecresto said:
Ok. I'm not going to disagree with you about that because I don't want this thread to become about Buchanan. His observation is shared. One thing nobody can do is posit a logical explanation for why Assad would make the mistake of using chemical weapons on his civilians, who largely support him. And as Buchanan correctly points out, he would be inviting a US attack that the US would love to give him. Furthermore it would undermine China and Russia's credibility in supporting him. IT MAKES NO SENSE. The rebels have EVERYTHING to gain by Assad getting blamed! So.................
Click to expand...
 
Assad's Father was worse than his son. Rumdum, who was a pal of Saddam, is better at rewriting history than Cheney, who is surprisingly quiet right now. Do you remember Reagan/Bush and their people doing this to Clinton? Or Clinton/Gore and their people doing this to Bush? No, you didn't.
Montecresto said:
Wow! Really? Rummy's punking Powell.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
You're asking me to explain the actions of a madman. And you're refuswing to go with what the Republican grown-ups in the Senate have seen for evidence. That is why this forum is called Debate Politics. Where a piece of garbage like Rep. Joe Wilson can bring up five or six phony scandals at the hearing today.
Click to expand...

John Kerry and his wife had a nice dinner with president Assad in an upscale restaurant in Damascus a couple years ago and were singing his praises. As has Pelosi and Clinton. He was touted as the great reformer. NATO says he enjoys the support of 70% of his people, why in the hell would he attack them. He's fighting a war on terror against islamist extremist jihadist, the same fellas we fought for 12 years and now find as ally's and so are interfering with Assad's war on terror.
 
NIMBY said:
Assad's Father was worse than his son. Rumdum, who was a pal of Saddam, is better at rewriting history than Cheney, who is surprisingly quiet right now. Do you remember Reagan/Bush and their people doing this to Clinton? Or Clinton/Gore and their people doing this to Bush? No, you didn't.
Click to expand...

Damn dude, I'm no defender of Rumsfeld, what are you talking about? I was just surprised that he was throwing Powell under the bus.
 
Google his Father. You've bought the Putin gambit hook, line and sinker. Do you think the rebels shot the chems? Did the rebels move civilians into harm's way? Aren't you glad POTUS Obama is airing this one out before attacking, unlike Iraq?
Montecresto said:
John Kerry and his wife had a nice dinner with president Assad in an upscale restaurant in Damascus a couple years ago and were singing his praises. As has Pelosi and Clinton. He was touted as the great reformer. NATO says he enjoys the support of 70% of his people, why in the hell would he attack them. He's fighting a war on terror against islamist extremist jihadist, the same fellas we fought for 12 years and now find as ally's and so are interfering with Assad's war on terror.
Click to expand...
 
Which is why Bush-41 was so statesmanlike and so smart to convince his Son to also be above it all and be a statesman. Bush's people, not so much.
Montecresto said:
Damn dude, I'm no defender of Rumsfeld, what are you talking about? I was just surprised that he was throwing Powell under the bus.
Click to expand...
 
Statesmen, hahahahahaha, it would appear you've made a purchase yourself.
 
NIMBY said:
Google his Father. You've bought the Putin gambit hook, line and sinker. Do you think the rebels shot the chems? Did the rebels move civilians into harm's way? Aren't you glad POTUS Obama is airing this one out before attacking, unlike Iraq?
Click to expand...

Of course the Islamist extremist jihadist "shot the chems"
 
Why is that proof not being shown by the TEAparty? I just saw that 187 Repubs voted against the Kosovo resolution. Some things never change.
Montecresto said:
Of course the Islamist extremist jihadist "shot the chems"
Click to expand...
 
Montecresto said:
I think he did. Also, he joins a growing list of prominent people, myself included, that see it as obvious.
Click to expand...

He opposed the Gulf War, which was silly on his part. But I see on google he also opposed Bush's Iraqi folly, so I'll give him credit for that. It took some guts to oppose the trumped up post-9-11 war machine in that case.
 
I give credit where it is due. OTOH, if Bush did speak, that might help Obama. Who knows? Reverse psychology. What I do know is that he hasn't. And that is the definition of a statesman.
Montecresto said:
Statesmen, hahahahahaha, it would appear you've made a purchase yourself.
Click to expand...
 
head of joaquin said:
He opposed the Gulf War, which was silly on his part. But I see on google he also opposed Bush's Iraqi folly, so I'll give him credit for that. It took some guts to oppose the trumped up post-9-11 war machine in that case.
Click to expand...

Opposing the gulf war wasn't silly. It's never silly to oppose war.
 
Montecresto said:
Opposing the gulf war wasn't silly. It's never silly to oppose war.
Click to expand...

It is when a madman like Saddam starts invading and destabilizing an entire region. Especially after Reagan has armed him with advanced weapons.

But Assad hasn't invaded anybody so we have a different set of circumstances now.
 
Montecresto said:
No! Wrong. He is being accused of using chemical weapons on his civilians, not the Islamist extremists that are destroying his country. See post #24.
Click to expand...

And you think someone like Comrade Assad would spare a millisecond of his neural activity on distinguishing between "extremists" and "civilians"?

Really, dude....
 
Cyrylek said:
And you think someone like Comrade Assad would spare a millisecond of his neural activity on distinguishing between "extremists" and "civilians"?

Really, dude....
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. He has nothing to gain by attacking his people that support him. Why is this difficult? He's got Russia and China backing him up. They have protected him from US aggressions by vetoing sanctions, no-fly zone and military action for three years. He has absolutely NOTHING to gain by attacking his people. But the rebels have everything to gain by executing an attack that could be blamed on him. Btw, nothing I'm saying is a endorsement of president Assad. It's about him being framed by the US, because "regime change" in Syria has been a US foreign policy goal for a long time now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom