Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Assad didn't gas his own people!
All indications are that is was the al Qaeda rebels that we are providing material support to.
What would Assad have to gain with a chemical attack? He was already winning the war.Assad didn't gas his own people!
All indications are that is was the al Qaeda rebels that we are providing material support to.
Nonsense. There are a couple of such CLAIMS by assholes with the motive to lie, like Assad and like the Russians who have Syria as their client state.
But "all indications?" Pure horse shit. There are NO rational indications. LOGIC suggests that it was (and almost had to be) Assad and his fucking evil regime that did it.
When you step back and look at the facts, it just doesn't add up that Assad did this.US, British and French services are 100% certain that the Syrian Arab army gassed an unknown number of civilians:
1. For this they would have used a new kind of old sarin gas that does not affect women.In international law, war propaganda is the most serious crime because it makes all other crimes possible.
2. For four days, the United States observed the preparing of the crime without intervening.
3. The day before use, the magic gas killed children who were kidnapped by jihadists two weeks earlier and more than 200 miles away.
4. These events are known through authentic films made and sometimes posted in advance on YouTube.
5. They are confirmed by a telephone interception produced by the Israeli enemy.
6. Western secret services have a secret method for identifying sarin gas without having to culture human tissue.
7. As it would be the fifteenth such operation, the “régime” would have crossed a “red line ” and should be “punished” by bombing it to deprive it of its means of defense.
That's why you are a piece of shit. You root against your own country.And that's the other part that I am pissed about. I am rooting for a known Communist KGB acolyte from the Cold War...that I want to see call Obama's BLUFF.Hold the table steady. You have to remember that Putin is the best poker player on the planet.
MY the Tables turn...
Assad didn't gas his own people!
All indications are that is was the al Qaeda rebels that we are providing material support to.
Nonsense. There are a couple of such CLAIMS by assholes with the motive to lie, like Assad and like the Russians who have Syria as their client state.
But "all indications?" Pure horse shit. There are NO rational indications. LOGIC suggests that it was (and almost had to be) Assad and his fucking evil regime that did it.
Assad didn't gas his own people!
All indications are that is was the al Qaeda rebels that we are providing material support to.
Nonsense. There are a couple of such CLAIMS by assholes with the motive to lie, like Assad and like the Russians who have Syria as their client state.
But "all indications?" Pure horse shit. There are NO rational indications. LOGIC suggests that it was (and almost had to be) Assad and his fucking evil regime that did it.
SO?
who cares who did what there?
It's none of our business.
* UN inspectors report completed
- Bush: Yes
- Obama: No
* UN Security Council Authorization
- Bush: Yes
- Obama: No
* Coalition of the Willing
- Bush: Yes
- Obama: No
* Authorization from Congress
- Bush: Yes
- Obama: No
* Goal of Regime Change:
- Bush: Yes
- Obama: No
You are not answering my question, Sherry.
Why aren't RW-ers supporting a strike on Syria?
Obviously, they supported striking Iraq, otherwise Congressional Republicans wouldn't have authorized it.
If the UN inspector reports say that Assad used gas, will you support a strike?
The Rightwing voter never - and I mean never - opposes a sitting GOP president prior to lame duck status.
The GOP is lucky. They have the most obedient voters in this country's history.
What is the difference in rationale between Iraq and Syria?
- Dictator/Tyrant has WMD capability
- Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
- Danger to Israel
- De-stabilize ME
Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.
There are two differences.
1. The main one is that they oppose anything that Obama does.
2. The second is the American people are weary of war. After Bush's war fiascos, people are right to be suspicious, and opposed to it.
I think that Obama is wrong to be pushing for war in Syria. It is not our business. Things are unstable in the Mideast, and America can not constantly be fighting there.
I don't agree with your wording. I don't consider surgical strikes on airfields and perhaps military infrastructure to be 'war'.
If that was the case, Reagan declared 'war' on Quaddafi when he sent those missiles over at his tents in the 1980s, and Clinton declared 'war' on Afghanistan when he sent missiles at Osama bin Laden.
What is the difference in rationale between Iraq and Syria?
- Dictator/Tyrant has WMD capability
- Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
- Danger to Israel
- De-stabilize ME
Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.
You seem to have your mind made up, so why ask the questions?
Because I'm asking Right-Wingers for their opinion.
And my mind is only made up as far as being certain that we must answer this use of CW. And it must be a strong enough action that it gives Assad serious pause.
That could mean bombing things he needs to stay in power. It could mean freezing every asset he has around the world.
I don't know. I don't care. As long as it's substantial.
This has nothing to do with 'strategic gains'. It has to do with upholding the ban on CW.For me, I don't see any strategic gains to be made by attacking Assad and siding with Al Qaeda, we don't have a cease-fire with Syria that was breached, and Assad isn't harboring terrorists. However, my mind isn't made up.
I don't for a second believe Obama wants to use force, but sometimes the integrity of the United States Of America must be upheld. Not Obama's integrity with his red line comment - the country's. This has been a red line since 1925.
So we have to use force to save the integrity of the country that Obama damaged by making a boast he was not prepared to back up?
We've already violated the Geneva Conventions under Bush - are we going to totally disregard them from this point on?
Ah B.D.S.
You mean back in 1988, while Bush The Greater was POTUS, and did nothing?
What does that have to do with 2003? That wasn't Bush The Lesser's reasoning for invading. It was all about "mushroom clouds" and "Yellowcake".
All?
No.
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
It was "all" of the sell-job (snow-job) to the American people.
Find a Bush speech that points to CW as the rationale for invasion.
Jesus Christ, I think this is the first time you and I ever agreed on something.SO?
who cares who did what there?
It's none of our business.
There's plenty of difference between Syria and Iraq, Synthaholic.
1) Intelligence. Although it may have been false, we acted on what was at the time concrete intelligence that Saddam Hussein had WMD. Here in Syria, all we know is that some unknown force launched a chemical attack on Aleppo and the Gouta.
2) International consensus. President Bush had a full contingent of international support for an invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. As opposed to Bush, Obama has none.
3) Congressional approval. In 2002, the Iraq Resolution passed 77-23 in the Senate and 297-133 in the House. Ironically then, 40% (82 of 209) of Democrats in the House passed the resolution, while 58% (29 of 50) them passed it in the Senate. Rumors are now that Obama does not have enough votes in either house to approve a strike.
4) Those who ignore their past mistakes are doomed to repeat them. Apparently Obama didn't learn well enough from Bush the consequences of not looking before leaping. We as Conservatives, Libertarians, and Republicans learned from our mistakes. You Liberals and Democrats continue to and insist on making them as far as Syria is concerned.
We didn't "act on intelligence" at the time, we "cooked the books" to build a case for war. Bush cherry-picked the intel to fit the policy. And that's the same god-damn propaganda bullshit that's going on right now.There's plenty of difference between Syria and Iraq, Synthaholic.
1) Intelligence. Although it may have been false, we acted on what was at the time concrete intelligence that Saddam Hussein had WMD. Here in Syria, all we know is that some unknown force launched a chemical attack on Aleppo and the Gouta.
2) International consensus. President Bush had a full contingent of international support for an invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. As opposed to Bush, Obama has none.
3) Congressional approval. In 2002, the Iraq Resolution passed 77-23 in the Senate and 297-133 in the House. Ironically then, 40% (82 of 209) of Democrats in the House passed the resolution, while 58% (29 of 50) them passed it in the Senate. Rumors are now that Obama does not have enough votes in either house to approve a strike.
4) Those who ignore their past mistakes are doomed to repeat them. Apparently Obama didn't learn well enough from Bush the consequences of not looking before leaping. We as Conservatives, Libertarians, and Republicans learned from our mistakes. You Liberals and Democrats continue to and insist on making them as far as Syria is concerned.
This post is worth repeating, for those of us who still have 10-inch think titanium plated heads.
It's just not rational (or logical) to think this was done by the Syrian army.
When you step back and look at the facts, it just doesn't add up that Assad did this.US, British and French services are 100% certain that the Syrian Arab army gassed an unknown number of civilians:
1. For this they would have used a new kind of old sarin gas that does not affect women.In international law, war propaganda is the most serious crime because it makes all other crimes possible.
2. For four days, the United States observed the preparing of the crime without intervening.
3. The day before use, the magic gas killed children who were kidnapped by jihadists two weeks earlier and more than 200 miles away.
4. These events are known through authentic films made and sometimes posted in advance on YouTube.
5. They are confirmed by a telephone interception produced by the Israeli enemy.
6. Western secret services have a secret method for identifying sarin gas without having to culture human tissue.
7. As it would be the fifteenth such operation, the “régime” would have crossed a “red line ” and should be “punished” by bombing it to deprive it of its means of defense.
This is just another remake of the Gulf of Tonkin (or the Iraq had WMD's) bullshit.
We didn't "act on intelligence" at the time, we "cooked the books" to build a case for war. Bush cherry-picked the intel to fit the policy. And that's the same god-damn propaganda bullshit that's going on right now.There's plenty of difference between Syria and Iraq, Synthaholic.
1) Intelligence. Although it may have been false, we acted on what was at the time concrete intelligence that Saddam Hussein had WMD. Here in Syria, all we know is that some unknown force launched a chemical attack on Aleppo and the Gouta.
2) International consensus. President Bush had a full contingent of international support for an invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. As opposed to Bush, Obama has none.
3) Congressional approval. In 2002, the Iraq Resolution passed 77-23 in the Senate and 297-133 in the House. Ironically then, 40% (82 of 209) of Democrats in the House passed the resolution, while 58% (29 of 50) them passed it in the Senate. Rumors are now that Obama does not have enough votes in either house to approve a strike.
4) Those who ignore their past mistakes are doomed to repeat them. Apparently Obama didn't learn well enough from Bush the consequences of not looking before leaping. We as Conservatives, Libertarians, and Republicans learned from our mistakes. You Liberals and Democrats continue to and insist on making them as far as Syria is concerned.
This post is worth repeating, for those of us who still have 10-inch think titanium plated heads.
