A Syria question

[blackhawk]

Over 100,000 have died in Syria by conventional weapons and no one in the world had any real interest in taking action against Assad now at least a 1000 have died from a chemical weapon attack and the world view now is Assad must pay so here is the question. Why do 100,000 dead by conventional weapons get basically no response from the rest of the world but a 1000 dead by chemical weapons does?

 

[Avatar4321]

Because apparently the chemical weapons are more horrific deaths. People are worried it's going to cause armies to start using WMDs more often if there is no response. I find it to be a silly distinction. If they kill people they are dead either way.

 

[g5000]

Over 100,000 have died in Syria by conventional weapons and no one in the world had any real interest in taking action against Assad now at least a 1000 have died from a chemical weapon attack and the world view now is Assad must pay so here is the question. Why do 100,000 dead by conventional weapons get basically no response from the rest of the world but a 1000 dead by chemical weapons does?

First, you are mistaken no one has taken action before now. The UN has been actively involved since the civil war broke out. See Resolutions 2042, 2043, and 2059.

See also: Kofi Annan peace envoy for Syria

US-Russia peace proposal on Syria

39th G8 summit (the summit was dominated by discussions about Syria)

Geneva II Middle East peace conference (Peace conference for Syrian civil war)


Second, the chemical weapons attack escalated the situation for this reason: Chemical Weapons Convention

 

[deltex1]

Over 100,000 have died in Syria by conventional weapons and no one in the world had any real interest in taking action against Assad now at least a 1000 have died from a chemical weapon attack and the world view now is Assad must pay so here is the question. Why do 100,000 dead by conventional weapons get basically no response from the rest of the world but a 1000 dead by chemical weapons does?

First, you are mistaken no one has taken action before now. The UN has been actively involved since the civil war broke out. See Resolutions 2042, 2043, and 2059.

See also: Kofi Annan peace envoy for Syria

US-Russia peace proposal on Syria

39th G8 summit (the summit was dominated by discussions about Syria)

Geneva II Middle East peace conference (Peace conference for Syrian civil war)


Second, the chemical weapons attack escalated the situation for this reason: Chemical Weapons Convention

He's talking about effective action not progtard bs.

 

[g5000]

Over 100,000 have died in Syria by conventional weapons and no one in the world had any real interest in taking action against Assad now at least a 1000 have died from a chemical weapon attack and the world view now is Assad must pay so here is the question. Why do 100,000 dead by conventional weapons get basically no response from the rest of the world but a 1000 dead by chemical weapons does?

First, you are mistaken no one has taken action before now. The UN has been actively involved since the civil war broke out. See Resolutions 2042, 2043, and 2059.

See also: Kofi Annan peace envoy for Syria

US-Russia peace proposal on Syria

39th G8 summit (the summit was dominated by discussions about Syria)

Geneva II Middle East peace conference (Peace conference for Syrian civil war)


Second, the chemical weapons attack escalated the situation for this reason: Chemical Weapons Convention

He's talking about effective action not progtard bs.

You mean like missile attacks, idiot?

It is amazing you people don't keel over from cognitive dissonance.

 

[B. Kidd]

Over 100,000 have died in Syria by conventional weapons and no one in the world had any real interest in taking action against Assad now at least a 1000 have died from a chemical weapon attack and the world view now is Assad must pay so here is the question. Why do 100,000 dead by conventional weapons get basically no response from the rest of the world but a 1000 dead by chemical weapons does?

Brits don't buy into that worldview.
This worldview is Obamas, because he is a thin-skinned, narcissistic idiot who painted himself into a corner by flapping his jaws with his red line comment.
Hell, this loser can't even build a coalition.
If Canada is smart, they'll snub Obamas' worldview too!!!

 

[deltex1]

First, you are mistaken no one has taken action before now. The UN has been actively involved since the civil war broke out. See Resolutions 2042, 2043, and 2059.

See also: Kofi Annan peace envoy for Syria

US-Russia peace proposal on Syria

39th G8 summit (the summit was dominated by discussions about Syria)

Geneva II Middle East peace conference (Peace conference for Syrian civil war)


Second, the chemical weapons attack escalated the situation for this reason: Chemical Weapons Convention

He's talking about effective action not progtard bs.

You mean like missile attacks, idiot?

It is amazing you people don't keel over from cognitive dissonance.

I'm not talking about past effective scion, Gertrude....there has been little to none. I am talking future effective action...impossible under the magic neeeeeeeeegro.

 

[Vox]

Over 100,000 have died in Syria by conventional weapons and no one in the world had any real interest in taking action against Assad now at least a 1000 have died from a chemical weapon attack and the world view now is Assad must pay so here is the question. Why do 100,000 dead by conventional weapons get basically no response from the rest of the world but a 1000 dead by chemical weapons does?

WHICH world?

obama's minions?

 

[blackhawk]

Over 100,000 have died in Syria by conventional weapons and no one in the world had any real interest in taking action against Assad now at least a 1000 have died from a chemical weapon attack and the world view now is Assad must pay so here is the question. Why do 100,000 dead by conventional weapons get basically no response from the rest of the world but a 1000 dead by chemical weapons does?

First, you are mistaken no one has taken action before now. The UN has been actively involved since the civil war broke out. See Resolutions 2042, 2043, and 2059.

See also: Kofi Annan peace envoy for Syria

US-Russia peace proposal on Syria

39th G8 summit (the summit was dominated by discussions about Syria)

Geneva II Middle East peace conference (Peace conference for Syrian civil war)


Second, the chemical weapons attack escalated the situation for this reason: Chemical Weapons Convention

First during the entire time you say the U.N. was involved in Syria the fighting continued and people continued to die so that is not really taking action second if the use of chemical weapons escalated the situation why is the action that we are supposedly going to take going to be very limited and short term? Does anyone really think short term limited military strikes will deter Assad?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Chemical weapons kill without distinction. Traditional weapons seek out specific targets.

And for the record within the first 1000 deaths of innocent people many in congress as well as a few of us called for intervention. America should never stand on the sidelines when genocice or mass murders on this scale are taking place. The type of action to take is obviously a wide range but negotiable.

By not stepping in at 1000 there are now 100000 dead.

 

[Sherry]

Quite frankly I am stunned that this particular situation is the one the administration has decided to hang their hat on...with no real support from the majority of citizens, both parties in Congress, our greatest ally or the UN. No doubt that it is incredibly emotional to see those dead children, but we've had many instances all over the globe of people, including children, being slaughtered. Dead is dead, and where are all the fucking anti-war protestors??

 

[g5000]

Over 100,000 have died in Syria by conventional weapons and no one in the world had any real interest in taking action against Assad now at least a 1000 have died from a chemical weapon attack and the world view now is Assad must pay so here is the question. Why do 100,000 dead by conventional weapons get basically no response from the rest of the world but a 1000 dead by chemical weapons does?

First, you are mistaken no one has taken action before now. The UN has been actively involved since the civil war broke out. See Resolutions 2042, 2043, and 2059.

See also: Kofi Annan peace envoy for Syria

US-Russia peace proposal on Syria

39th G8 summit (the summit was dominated by discussions about Syria)

Geneva II Middle East peace conference (Peace conference for Syrian civil war)


Second, the chemical weapons attack escalated the situation for this reason: Chemical Weapons Convention

First during the entire time you say the U.N. was involved in Syria the fighting continued and people continued to die so that is not really taking action second if the use of chemical weapons escalated the situation why is the action that we are supposedly going to take going to be very limited and short term? Does anyone really think short term limited military strikes will deter Assad?

What would you consider to be effective action other than an invasion to accomplish regime change?

The hypocritical Right has blocked the US from taking any other action than diplomatic ones. They resist every effort at no-fly zones, and now they resist a missile attack. All the faux doves on the Right want to do is talk.

Hypocrites. They could not WAIT to invade Syria's patron, Iran, while Bush was around, though. Two wars weren't enough for them.

Their bogus bullshit is completely transparent.

 

[B. Kidd]

A short term strike will result in Assad coming out stronger as Russian aid will be pouring in afterwards.

This administration has lost whats left of its fuckin' mind.......

 

[percysunshine]

Quite frankly I am stunned that this particular situation is the one the administration has decided to hang their hat on...??

Obama shot his mouth off and now needs to save face.

'Smart Power' diplomacy isn't what it use to be.

 

[blackhawk]

First, you are mistaken no one has taken action before now. The UN has been actively involved since the civil war broke out. See Resolutions 2042, 2043, and 2059.

See also: Kofi Annan peace envoy for Syria

US-Russia peace proposal on Syria

39th G8 summit (the summit was dominated by discussions about Syria)

Geneva II Middle East peace conference (Peace conference for Syrian civil war)


Second, the chemical weapons attack escalated the situation for this reason: Chemical Weapons Convention

First during the entire time you say the U.N. was involved in Syria the fighting continued and people continued to die so that is not really taking action second if the use of chemical weapons escalated the situation why is the action that we are supposedly going to take going to be very limited and short term? Does anyone really think short term limited military strikes will deter Assad?

What would you consider to be effective action other than an invasion to accomplish regime change?
You could have armed and supported the rebels when the uprising first started before the radical Islam elements came in

The hypocritical Right has blocked the US from taking any other action than diplomatic ones. They resist every effort at no-fly zones, and now they resist a missile attack. All the faux doves on the Right want to do is talk.
Unlike Libya Syria has a very extensive and effective anti aircraft defense system so that makes establishing a no fly zone questionable at best.As has been pointed out a missile attack will be limited and short term I will ask again anyone think that will deter Assad?
Hypocrites. They could not WAIT to invade Syria's patron, Iran, while Bush was around, though. Two wars weren't enough for them.
No one has ever suggested invading Iran.
Their bogus bullshit is completely transparent.

The only bogus bullshit here is yours.

 

[deltex1]

What would you consider to be effective action other than an invasion to accomplish regime change?




A 2000 pounder on Assad's head.