Right-Wingers: What's different about Syria?

[kaz]

Assad wouldn't use CW without approval or direction from Teheran.

Maybe Iran wanted this as a trial balloon. Maybe they want to use CW against us if we attack them, and be able to claim it's perfectly legit. They see a Republican Party that opposes everything Obama wants. It would be easy to guess that they would oppose him on this, also.

If 23 murdered 5 year-olds in Newtown couldn't get them to compromise with Obama, why would this? Especially since there is no oil involved.

"Assad wouldn't use CW without approval or direction from Teheran." - This is a logical fallacy called "begging the question." I am saying it's more logical the rebels did it, you're assuming the truth of your own position that it's Assad.

As for the gun in Newtown thing, how's making sure that lunatics are the only ones armed when they go postal working for you? How many schools, malls, movie theaters and need to get shot up with no one shooting back before we try a different solution?

Who shot back in Atlanta a few weeks ago?

Which "good person with a gun" solved that situation?

A cop got shot in the back. Um...do you have a well formed argument to make here or are you just pissing in the wind?

Assad is totally dependent upon Iran, with Russian support.

Still begging the question.

 

[The T]

He just admitted to rooting for Putin over Obama.

If you are rooting for a KGB head over the President Of The United States, then you are rooting against America.

It's as simple as that.

No it isn't and was explained...you wanna make hay over it? Let's go son...

It does raise an interesting question. IF America has become a country that is involving itself in a holy war to slaughter Christians, isn't it time to root against America?

I oppose the country that summarily executes the way the terrorists were shown executing Syrians. I oppose the country's fighters that rips the entrails out of dead victims and eats them. I oppose the murder of a 14 year old boy in front of his parents because he disrespected the prophet. I oppose killing Christians that won't convert and burning their churches. I oppose the use of chemical weapons and blaming someone else.

If America supports this, and allies itself with the very people who killed over 3,000 Americans, with the terrorists who killed Americans in Benghazi, then it follows that I must, absolutely must, oppose the evil that America has become.

Fair enough and THIS Administration that supports it. Synthia is butthurt it is brought to light. Synthia may kiss my ass. And thank you for bolstering my point with a different view as when a known Communist makes more sense than your own President does as for the sake of covering his own ass for not acting sooner, and all the other damage HE has wrought upon the Middle East?

WE should NEVER criticize Synthia's Obamessiah and his evil reign to destroy us.

 

[Synthaholic]

2001

Link?

 

[Synthaholic]

The difference is that we have a Democratic President. If a Republican was in the White House the Republicans would be beating the drums for war.

Republicans oppose everything Obama does. They want everything he does to fail.

Yup! It's always Party Before Country for Republicans.

So I'll ask again, Why is it going to be OK for a Democratic President to KILL THE CHILDREN in a pre-emptive strike?

I didn't answer the first time because it was dumb.

It's not pre-emptive after a WMD attack (Syria).

It is pre-emptive before a WMD attack (Iraq).

 

[AmazonTania]

Who has claimed that "humanitarianism is driving the fierce urgency"?

No one.

The rationale is the use of CW.

That was indeed Obumbler's red line. But in the process, Assad has slaughtered in the hundreds. Putting aside the mechanism of the slaughter, there have been thousands upon thousand slaughtered in Africa, with no official U.S. action to stop it.

So, it would seem to be that your concern, and Obumbler's concern, is that the mechanism of death of a thousand to two thousand is chemical weapons whereas the slaughter of maybe 200,000 or more in the Darfur region only involved starvation and regular weapons?

Am I the only one seeing something wrong with this picture you guys are trying to draw?

Chemical weapons are banned under the 1925 Geneva Conventions.

Conventional weapons are not.

What is so difficult to understand?

I think you're the one having a difficult time understanding. The Geneva Protocol is a treaty prohibiting the use first use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts. Meaning, should there ever be a war amongst it's signatories, Syria cannot use chemical or biological weapons against Iran, Iraq, America, Russia, etc, and vice versa.

There is, unfortunately, nothing under the protocol about the us of chemical and/or biological weapons in non-international conflicts, such as a civil war.

Which makes this line in the sand Obama has created even more puzzling.

 

[Contumacious]

That was indeed Obumbler's red line. But in the process, Assad has slaughtered in the hundreds. Putting aside the mechanism of the slaughter, there have been thousands upon thousand slaughtered in Africa, with no official U.S. action to stop it.

So, it would seem to be that your concern, and Obumbler's concern, is that the mechanism of death of a thousand to two thousand is chemical weapons whereas the slaughter of maybe 200,000 or more in the Darfur region only involved starvation and regular weapons?

Am I the only one seeing something wrong with this picture you guys are trying to draw?

Chemical weapons are banned under the 1925 Geneva Conventions.

Conventional weapons are not.

What is so difficult to understand?

I think you're the one having a difficult time understanding. The Geneva Protocol is a treaty prohibiting the use first use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts. Meaning, should there ever be a war amongst it's signatories, Syria cannot use chemical or biological weapons against Iran, Iraq, America, Russia, etc, and vice versa.

There is, unfortunately, nothing under the protocol about the us of chemical and/or biological weapons in non-international conflicts, such as a civil war.

Which makes this line in the sand Obama has created even more puzzling.

Forget the gas is a scam.

But if the Geneva Protocol was violated then the criminals would be the US , Israel and Saudi Arabia since they are the ones who supplied it to the rebels in order to have a pretext to attack Assad.

.

 

[The T]

Chemical weapons are banned under the 1925 Geneva Conventions.

Conventional weapons are not.

What is so difficult to understand?

I think you're the one having a difficult time understanding. The Geneva Protocol is a treaty prohibiting the use first use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts. Meaning, should there ever be a war amongst it's signatories, Syria cannot use chemical or biological weapons against Iran, Iraq, America, Russia, etc, and vice versa.

There is, unfortunately, nothing under the protocol about the us of chemical and/or biological weapons in non-international conflicts, such as a civil war.

Which makes this line in the sand Obama has created even more puzzling.

Forget the gas is a scam.

But if the Geneva Protocol was violated then the criminals would be the US , Israel and Saudi Arabia since they are the ones who supplied it to the rebels in order to have a pretext to attack Assad.

.

Those munitions came out of IRAQ.

 

[Synthaholic]

That was indeed Obumbler's red line. But in the process, Assad has slaughtered in the hundreds. Putting aside the mechanism of the slaughter, there have been thousands upon thousand slaughtered in Africa, with no official U.S. action to stop it.

So, it would seem to be that your concern, and Obumbler's concern, is that the mechanism of death of a thousand to two thousand is chemical weapons whereas the slaughter of maybe 200,000 or more in the Darfur region only involved starvation and regular weapons?

Am I the only one seeing something wrong with this picture you guys are trying to draw?

Chemical weapons are banned under the 1925 Geneva Conventions.

Conventional weapons are not.

What is so difficult to understand?

I think you're the one having a difficult time understanding. The Geneva Protocol is a treaty prohibiting the use first use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts. Meaning, should there ever be a war amongst it's signatories, Syria cannot use chemical or biological weapons against Iran, Iraq, America, Russia, etc, and vice versa.

There is, unfortunately, nothing under the protocol about the us of chemical and/or biological weapons in non-international conflicts, such as a civil war.

Which makes this line in the sand Obama has created even more puzzling.

Link?

 

[Synthaholic]

I was/am against both wars but I'll chime in seriously here:

Iraq used WMDs on the Kurds, killed thousands. Assad in Syria allegedly has used them to kill hundreds.

Saying that the people in Iraq were our allies is a stretch, saying the rebels in Syria are our allies would be a lie.

The GOP had support of John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and a number of other Democrats. Obama has John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner, and a number of other Republicans.

Bush got the go-ahead from Congress, it remains to be seen if obama will.

Pretty close but the edge has to go to GWB and Iraq.

We didn't go to war with Iraq in 2003 because he gassed the Kurds in 1988. To claim so would be absurd.

Bush/Cheney/Rice made the connection between bin Laden and Saddam, falsely. They weren't talking about CW, they were talking about mushroom clouds and yellowcake.

In Syria, CW attacks have actually occurred.


How, in the Right-Wing mind, does the threat of an attack justify a bigger response than an actual attack?

*bump*

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

Assad poses no immediate threat to us. It's as simple as that.

If we picked a fight with everyone who didn't like us or had an Army we'd be declaring war every damned day.


The reasons Obama wants to get rid of him aren't clear, but you can bet they aren't what he's claiming them to be.

How did Saddam pose an immediate threat to us?

*bump*

It's shameful how Right-Wingers run away.

 

[Contumacious]

I think you're the one having a difficult time understanding. The Geneva Protocol is a treaty prohibiting the use first use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts. Meaning, should there ever be a war amongst it's signatories, Syria cannot use chemical or biological weapons against Iran, Iraq, America, Russia, etc, and vice versa.

There is, unfortunately, nothing under the protocol about the us of chemical and/or biological weapons in non-international conflicts, such as a civil war.

Which makes this line in the sand Obama has created even more puzzling.

Forget the gas is a scam.

But if the Geneva Protocol was violated then the criminals would be the US , Israel and Saudi Arabia since they are the ones who supplied it to the rebels in order to have a pretext to attack Assad.

.

Those munitions came out of IRAQ.

And who, may I ask, supplied to Iraq?

Wasn't it one [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUPb-3zkh0c"]Donald Rumfilled?[/ame]

.

 

[Synthaholic]

Rumsfeld was ONLY the head of a huge pharmaceutical company at the time!

It will only be a matter of time until it comes out that Searle supplied the chemical weapons components.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That was indeed Obumbler's red line. But in the process, Assad has slaughtered in the hundreds. Putting aside the mechanism of the slaughter, there have been thousands upon thousand slaughtered in Africa, with no official U.S. action to stop it.

So, it would seem to be that your concern, and Obumbler's concern, is that the mechanism of death of a thousand to two thousand is chemical weapons whereas the slaughter of maybe 200,000 or more in the Darfur region only involved starvation and regular weapons?

Am I the only one seeing something wrong with this picture you guys are trying to draw?

Chemical weapons are banned under the 1925 Geneva Conventions.

Conventional weapons are not.

What is so difficult to understand?

I think you're the one having a difficult time understanding. The Geneva Protocol is a treaty prohibiting the use first use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts. Meaning, should there ever be a war amongst it's signatories, Syria cannot use chemical or biological weapons against Iran, Iraq, America, Russia, etc, and vice versa.

There is, unfortunately, nothing under the protocol about the us of chemical and/or biological weapons in non-international conflicts, such as a civil war.

Which makes this line in the sand Obama has created even more puzzling.

So you're implying that both Bush presidents were slinging horseshit when they both went on and on about Saddam using chemical weapons against his own people?

...not to mention every other Iraq war promoter who used the same line? ...in making the case for war?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

And conversely if Iraq was wrong then: then Syria is wrong now. you can't hve it both ways and don't try to tell us that you liberal despots never screamed "Bush lied people died" Eat it and own it.

Only to those who truly believe Bush lied.

 

[Katzndogz]

obama's biggest mistake is in thinking that this is like Chicago where the gang can do a drive by, then hole up someplace and no one does anything.

Neither he nor democrats believe that there will be any kind of retaliation at all! Syria and Russia will just take it!

Is there any basis, whatsoever, for having such a delusion? Is there any plan for what to do if there is a massive retaliation? Is there any plan for even such a basic thing as securing the chemical weapons?

Do you think Russia has not formulated its own plan?

 

[Synthaholic]

Chemical weapons are banned under the 1925 Geneva Conventions.

Conventional weapons are not.

What is so difficult to understand?

I think you're the one having a difficult time understanding. The Geneva Protocol is a treaty prohibiting the use first use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts. Meaning, should there ever be a war amongst it's signatories, Syria cannot use chemical or biological weapons against Iran, Iraq, America, Russia, etc, and vice versa.

There is, unfortunately, nothing under the protocol about the us of chemical and/or biological weapons in non-international conflicts, such as a civil war.

Which makes this line in the sand Obama has created even more puzzling.

So you're implying that both Bush presidents were slinging horseshit when they both went on and on about Saddam using chemical weapons against his own people?

...not to mention every other Iraq war promoter who used the same line? ...in making the case for war?

It's amazing how these Right-Wingers never fully think through what they are about to type.

 

[Meathead]

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.

A fucking epiphany!

 

[Boatswain2PA]

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?

She DID answer you question, but you refused to accept it.

I'll add to it. Iraq invaded one of our allies (Kuwait). We mobilized an incredible coalition and kicked their a$$es back to Iraq. That is what America IS, and that is what we SHOULD DO. We only stopped kicking their a$$es when Hussein capitulated. Part of his capitulation was that he promised to let UN weapons inspectors have free reign. This was part of us stopping the military action.

Wrong Iraq War, dumbass.

PGII was a continuation of PGI. Our nation was morally justified in waging war on Iraq AGAIN because Hussein reneged on the terms that he agreed to which ended the PGI.

Again, you are such an ideologue that you have no ability to form reason. None. Your blind love of your party, and the blinding hatred of anything conservative or republican, prevent any form of logic.

 

[Vox]

did Obama start another useless war yet?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think you're the one having a difficult time understanding. The Geneva Protocol is a treaty prohibiting the use first use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts. Meaning, should there ever be a war amongst it's signatories, Syria cannot use chemical or biological weapons against Iran, Iraq, America, Russia, etc, and vice versa.

There is, unfortunately, nothing under the protocol about the us of chemical and/or biological weapons in non-international conflicts, such as a civil war.

Which makes this line in the sand Obama has created even more puzzling.

So you're implying that both Bush presidents were slinging horseshit when they both went on and on about Saddam using chemical weapons against his own people?

...not to mention every other Iraq war promoter who used the same line? ...in making the case for war?

It's amazing how these Right-Wingers never fully think through what they are about to type.

It's weird that this 'loophole' would suddenly get tossed into the mix. There was always emphasis on the fact that it was against his OWN people that implicitly made it even more egregious.

btw, I just read the original Geneva protocol and i'm not seeing the limitations.