War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[Uncensored2008]

The point is that the use of chemical weapons opens up the proliferation of such weapons around the world. If the US does not respond here, Iran, North Korea and other countries around the world will not think the US is serious about stopping the proliferation of such weapons, let alone nuclear weapons.

That would be the North Korea and Iran working on active nuclear weapons programs?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Who's advocating war?

Barack Obama - fucktard in chief - with his little dog McCain wagging behind him.

My understanding is that the administration is proposing a limited attack, not a full scale George W. Bush invasion like what happened in Iraq.

Oh, so we'll just kill some women and children with missiles, and call it a day? Compassionate Communism in action again...

 

[RandallFlagg]

Lethal Weapon

FBI's Use of CS Gas Questioned at Davidian Trial


After the first tank assault came the ferret rounds. FBI agents, riding inside M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, began shooting 40mm ferret rounds containing CS gas into every available window at Mount Carmel. (CS gas gets its name from the two American scientists who invented it -- B.B. Corson and R.W. Stoughton.) The agents used Army-issue grenade launchers to fire the projectiles, each of which contained 3.7 grams of CS gas dissolved in 33 grams of the solvent methylene chloride.

Any chance that a friendly country will fire warning shots into DC to stop them from using gas against their citizens?!?!?!?!?

.

This was one of the saddest moments in American history. As it happens, I was at Fort Hood when this all happened. Very sad, indeed.

So the US has been using gas against their own people a foreign countries, using white phosphorus chemical which it has given to Israel.

So they can NOT claim the moral high ground.

.

As I recall, they used CS (pumped it into the house) in an effort to get the men, women and children to exit. They used Bradley's (from Fort Hood) to gain entrance. In essence, using weapons of war on our own people. The people (94 men, women and children) refused to exit the building for fear they would be shot. 2 unarmed men who did attempt to exit were shot and killed. The CS canisters started a fire which killed the civilians. The house burned to the ground in a matter of minutes while they stod by and watched it burn - not allowing fire trucks in to fight the fire until it was over. If memory serves, two men actually escaped the fire and were held for trial but were found not guilty and freed.

CS, while a chemical agent, is not considered "lethal" and is used primarily for military training and crowd control.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Look at the bright side, if the rebels win and we help defeat them then we will have armed Al Quaida with WMD. But at least Hezbollah and Iran will be weakened right? Good for Israel right, good for Quatar and Saudi too! Good business for everyone. Go Amerika!

Essentially, that is 100% correct and something that the vast majority of these "Let's support our Supreme Leader Obama" types have failed to recognize.

(1) If we launch attacks on these sites - we will do nothing more than hit dirt. Assad has most certainly moved these stockpiles to a different location(s) and, probably continues to move them now. The NRO is probably tracking movements, but can only do so as long as the satellites are in the proximity of their last movement. It's really not that hard to move under the cover of darkness. HUMIT would be tracking them, as long as there are assets in the area. As in Iraq, it's really not that hard to move something, if you are inclined to do it.

(2) If/When Assad is driven from power, the "rebels" (or "Students" as Barry likes to call them) will take control of the country and will have access to the (estimated) 200 tons of CBR capability.

The idiot Martin Dempsey (I served with the man - he is an IDIOT) states that we can "insert special operations personnel to take charge of the munitions". Again - he is an IDIOT. You would need (at the very least) 2-3 battalions of Rangers to even BEGIN to have a clue - I'm sure that Russia and Iran would sit idly by for that.

Nope. We are sitting this up for Al Queada to swoop in and take yet another country.

You have to hand it to Barry though...He is most definitely "fundamentally transforming" not only America - but the world.

Just heard on the radio that Barry says "I didn't set a "red line", America set a red line. The WORLD set a red line". Jesus. What an incompetent slob.

1. The strike is not designed to target ANY of the chemical stockpiles.

2. The strike is not designed to overthrow Assad.

3. There will be more than enough military targets to hit once the cruise missiles are flying. The Syrian military is engaged in the middle of a war. Many of the things the rebels can hit, can also be hit with U.S. Cruise Missiles.

Then what the hell, EXACTLY, is it designed to do? Kill civilians? The "stockpiles" as well as the "Army" will most likely move to schools, hospitals and the like. Civilians will be moved into positions of the likely "strikes" and then video cameras will cover the slaughter.

Gee,you really are uneducated about these people, aren't you? you MUST be a politician.

 

[Mustang]

Who's advocating war?

Barack Obama - fucktard in chief - with his little dog McCain wagging behind him.

My understanding is that the administration is proposing a limited attack, not a full scale George W. Bush invasion like what happened in Iraq.

Oh, so we'll just kill some women and children with missiles, and call it a day? Compassionate Communism in action again...

Then conservatives will have new war porn instead of just replaying those Fox News "Shock & Awe" reruns from March of 2003.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Then conservatives will have new war porn instead of just replaying those Fox News "Shock & Awe" reruns from March of 2003.

It looks like it's you Communist hypocrites calling for war, not the conservatives.

Apparently war is bad, if the President has an "R" behind his name - but if he is Obama - then war is the greatest good.

As I've always said, there is no hypocrisy like demopocrisy....

 

[candycorn]

You mean like spitting on someone can legally qualify as an assault so that a person could be charged with assault in a court of law? That's still not the same thing as breaking someone's nose with a punch to the face.

We've had "acts of war" from Korea onward until now. However, this has been the only time the right wing has been upset by the flexing of America's military might.

That having been said, no way, no how, we should be even remotely considering bombing Syria. Simply not worth it. The President is making a huge mistake by wanting to do this.

But hey, what do I know...I'm always supporting Obama or so I've been told.

Yeah, the conservative reluctance to embrace the latest chapter in shock and awe is perplexing. Think they've been reading any Chris Hedges books where perpetual war is the topic? Probably not.

At any rate, I'm not advocating an attack. Personally, despite evidence of a chemical attack, I haven't seen or heard any evidence which pins the tail of responsibility on the Assad donkey. Additionally, why are the last 1,400 deaths so outrageous compared to the first 100,000 deaths? Or am I supposed to believe death by light and heavy armaments is kinda okay, but chemical attacks are verboten, like wearing brown shoes with a blue suit?

All great points in my view. It's a tragedy going on over there but we don't have a good outcome for going in....therefore we shouldn't.

 

[candycorn]

You mean like spitting on someone can legally qualify as an assault so that a person could be charged with assault in a court of law? That's still not the same thing as breaking someone's nose with a punch to the face.

We've had "acts of war" from Korea onward until now. However, this has been the only time the right wing has been upset by the flexing of America's military might.

That having been said, no way, no how, we should be even remotely considering bombing Syria. Simply not worth it. The President is making a huge mistake by wanting to do this.

But hey, what do I know...I'm always supporting Obama or so I've been told.

your conclusion is correct, but you are wrong that the right has supported every stupid war that we have engaged in. Many on the right opposed Iraq and afghanistan, as well as korea and viet nam.

Many maybe. Most? No.

 

[Mustang]

Lethal Weapon

FBI's Use of CS Gas Questioned at Davidian Trial


After the first tank assault came the ferret rounds. FBI agents, riding inside M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, began shooting 40mm ferret rounds containing CS gas into every available window at Mount Carmel. (CS gas gets its name from the two American scientists who invented it -- B.B. Corson and R.W. Stoughton.) The agents used Army-issue grenade launchers to fire the projectiles, each of which contained 3.7 grams of CS gas dissolved in 33 grams of the solvent methylene chloride.

Any chance that a friendly country will fire warning shots into DC to stop them from using gas against their citizens?!?!?!?!?

.

This was one of the saddest moments in American history. As it happens, I was at Fort Hood when this all happened. Very sad, indeed.

So the US has been using gas against their own people a foreign countries, using white phosphorus chemical which it has given to Israel.

So they can NOT claim the moral high ground.

.

Let's not forget napalm, agent orange, and depleted uranium shells.

 

[Mustang]

Then conservatives will have new war porn instead of just replaying those Fox News "Shock & Awe" reruns from March of 2003.

It looks like it's you Communist hypocrites calling for war, not the conservatives.

Apparently war is bad, if the President has an "R" behind his name - but if he is Obama - then war is the greatest good.

As I've always said, there is no hypocrisy like demopocrisy....

Well, to address your complaint, Bush and company talked about WMD without any evidence to back up their claims. At least the Obama team has evidence. It's just not directly tied to one side or the other at this point.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, to address your complaint, Bush and company talked about WMD without any evidence to back up their claims.

Now Assad has used those same weapons...

OOOPS

At least the Obama team has evidence.

Obama has a "D" behind his name, that's the only difference, and the only thing you give a shit about.

It's just not directly tied to one side or the other at this point.

ROFL

Assad got Saddams stock piles - and has now unleashed them. When Obama ***** this all up, as he will - you'll blame Bush.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Gee, how convenient. Assad has become the Chemical Weapons Boogeyman they desperately wanted him to be. Way too convenient if you ask me. I'm not buying our Government's story on this.

It is way too convient. Obama's handlers need a reason to reason to "justify" actions that would otherwise be widely opposed.

Without the lie about "chemical weapons" (an invented problem), they would never have been able to sell the 'solution' - a military strike on Syria.

Just like when GWB was prez, without the lie about "weapons of mass destruction" (an invented problem), they would never have been able to sell the 'solution' - an invasion of Iraq.

Basically it's the same routine, different location.

 

[U2Edge]

Essentially, that is 100% correct and something that the vast majority of these "Let's support our Supreme Leader Obama" types have failed to recognize.

(1) If we launch attacks on these sites - we will do nothing more than hit dirt. Assad has most certainly moved these stockpiles to a different location(s) and, probably continues to move them now. The NRO is probably tracking movements, but can only do so as long as the satellites are in the proximity of their last movement. It's really not that hard to move under the cover of darkness. HUMIT would be tracking them, as long as there are assets in the area. As in Iraq, it's really not that hard to move something, if you are inclined to do it.

(2) If/When Assad is driven from power, the "rebels" (or "Students" as Barry likes to call them) will take control of the country and will have access to the (estimated) 200 tons of CBR capability.

The idiot Martin Dempsey (I served with the man - he is an IDIOT) states that we can "insert special operations personnel to take charge of the munitions". Again - he is an IDIOT. You would need (at the very least) 2-3 battalions of Rangers to even BEGIN to have a clue - I'm sure that Russia and Iran would sit idly by for that.

Nope. We are sitting this up for Al Queada to swoop in and take yet another country.

You have to hand it to Barry though...He is most definitely "fundamentally transforming" not only America - but the world.

Just heard on the radio that Barry says "I didn't set a "red line", America set a red line. The WORLD set a red line". Jesus. What an incompetent slob.

1. The strike is not designed to target ANY of the chemical stockpiles.

2. The strike is not designed to overthrow Assad.

3. There will be more than enough military targets to hit once the cruise missiles are flying. The Syrian military is engaged in the middle of a war. Many of the things the rebels can hit, can also be hit with U.S. Cruise Missiles.

Then what the hell, EXACTLY, is it designed to do? Kill civilians? The "stockpiles" as well as the "Army" will most likely move to schools, hospitals and the like. Civilians will be moved into positions of the likely "strikes" and then video cameras will cover the slaughter.

Gee,you really are uneducated about these people, aren't you? you MUST be a politician.

There are things like Fuel storage facilities, aircraft, aircraft hangers, helicopters, artillery, main battle tanks, armored personal carriers, military check points, frontline military positions adjacent to rebel held areas, oil and natural gas facilities, electricity facilities, military barracks, communications networks, government buildings etc.

There are plenty of targets to hit besides chemical stockpiles.

 

[Hoffstra]

let's see if Congress comes even close to reflecting the views of the American people on this issue.

I doubt it.

they are beholden to their donors, not their voters.

....until a few months before the election.

 

[Geaux4it]

This is the way liberals deliver a strong message....The strike is akin to 'If a tree falls in the forest........"

-Geaux

 

[Mustang]

Well, to address your complaint, Bush and company talked about WMD without any evidence to back up their claims.

Now Assad has used those same weapons...

OOOPS

At least the Obama team has evidence.

Obama has a "D" behind his name, that's the only difference, and the only thing you give a shit about.

It's just not directly tied to one side or the other at this point.

ROFL

Assad got Saddams stock piles - and has now unleashed them. When Obama ***** this all up, as he will - you'll blame Bush.

Chemical weapons have a short shelf life, Sherlock.

Next time, I'll explain to you how you can tell when water is boiling.

 

[georgephillip]

Possibly this information was posted earlier in the day, if so, I'm sorry for the repeat, but it is worth pondering why so many elites in both major parties are pushing for escalation in Syria:

"The resolution specifically would permit Obama to order a limited military mission against Syria, as long as it doesn't exceed 90 days and involves no American troops on the ground for combat operations. The Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Bob Menendez, and the panel's top Republican, Sen. Bob Corker, crafted the resolution."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/04/mccain-opposes-syria-strike-resolution/

 

[percysunshine]

“I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line."

Bullshit;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxxwfaIAl_Q&feature=player_embedded]Obama Warns Syria's Assad Chemical Weapons A 'RED Line' - YouTube[/ame]



And then he goes on to say;

“My credibility is not on the line — the international community’s credibility is on the line,”



How can anyone defend this turd?

 

[Geaux4it]

I'm still waiting on the proof Assad launched these

-Geaux

 

[RandallFlagg]

“I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line."

Bullshit;

Obama Warns Syria's Assad Chemical Weapons A 'RED Line' - YouTube



And then he goes on to say;

“My credibility is not on the line — the international community’s credibility is on the line,”



How can anyone defend this turd?

Seriously? These communists lefties would follow that fool into a raging fire. Like I said, he is TERRIFIED that his so-called "legacy" will be tarnished. THAT is what this is all about. Nothing more and damned sure nothing less.

If he were actually "outraged" at the use of chemical weapons, this would have been all the rage a year ago. Suddenly, he is "concerned" - because he looks foolish.