U.S.: Syria used chemical weapons, crossing "red line"

[Katzndogz]

These chemical weapons were handled very carefully under conditions so controlled that only women, children and the elderly were killed.

 

[NightFox]

If Syria (or whoever used the chemical weapons in Syria), goes unpunished, it means that the use of chemical weapons will most likely be used in conflicts all over the world. This is the real issue.

Chemical Weapons Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does a failure to retaliate mean that the Chemical Weapons Convention is dead?

It was never "alive" the major powers have built and maintained enormous stockpiles of chemical weapons since the end of WW I....

What proof do you have of these assertions?

It only takes a bit of logic to tell that you're taking a wild guess. You believe that the super powers have stock piles of chemical weapons, but you certainly do not know that as a fact.

Actually I do know that for a fact, they have on more than one occasion admitted as much and having served in the military I was privy to the tactical and strategic SOP for our use of NBC in the event of a conflict.

It is highly doubtful that the super powers have stock piles of chemical weapons.

It's not highly doubtful it's a fact that we have existing stockpiles of them and we had contingency plans to utilize them (along with tactical nuclear weapons) in defense of Western Europe had the Soviets decided to invade.

 

[Richard-H]

These chemical weapons were handled very carefully under conditions so controlled that only women, children and the elderly were killed.

That's exactly right. Chemical weapons are terrorist weapons, and are not generally something professional military people would use. Of course it's doubtful that Syria's miltary is at all acting in a professional military manner. The Syrian civil war has most likely degenerated to a war of hatred and extermination.

 

[Vox]

I have already heard that before, didn't I?
And the screeching then of the today's cheering crowd

 

[paulitician]

Absolutely no strategic value in Assad using Chemical Weapons. It didn't happen. They've been pushing that 'Chemical Attack' meme since War began over there. It's a convenient excuse for more War. Nothing like an ole WMD accusation to work the sheep into a frenzy. They'll keep pushing this until they see a shift in poll numbers supporting their useless War. Expect the propaganda to get pretty thick from the Government/Media Complex. Stay tuned.

 

[Richard-H]

It was never "alive" the major powers have built and maintained enormous stockpiles of chemical weapons since the end of WW I....

What proof do you have of these assertions?

It only takes a bit of logic to tell that you're taking a wild guess. You believe that the super powers have stock piles of chemical weapons, but you certainly do not know that as a fact.

Actually I do know that for a fact, they have on more than one occasion admitted as much and having served in the military I was privy to the tactical and strategic SOP for our use of NBC in the event of a conflict.

It is highly doubtful that the super powers have stock piles of chemical weapons.

It's not highly doubtful it's a fact that we have existing stockpiles of them and we had contingency plans to utilize them (along with tactical nuclear weapons) in defense of Western Europe had the Soviets decided to invade.

I find it hard to believe that you have any direct knowledge of any plans for the use of chemical or biological weapons by the U.S. military. If you did, it would require that you have top secret security clearance, and that your stating this would be a violation of your security clearance. I suggest that you contact Mr. Snowden and find out if he has a need for a roommate.

I'm sure that the U.S. military has procedures to defend against such an attack, but it's doubtful that we have any plans for using them as weapons. The political fallout alone would be devastating.

 

[NightFox]

Absolutely no strategic value in Assad using Chemical Weapons. It didn't happen. They've been pushing that 'Chemical Attack' meme since War began over there. It's a convenient excuse for more War. Nothing like an ole WMD accusation to work the sheep into a frenzy. They'll keep pushing this until they see a shift in poll numbers supporting their useless War. Expect the propaganda to get pretty thick from the Government/Media Complex. Stay tuned.

Actually there would be a strategic value for Assad to utilize chemical weapons, to terrorize his opposition and the civilian populace, on the flip side it would be incredibly short sighted given the risk that the United States would get involved in the Syrian Civil War on the side of the opposition. Given that it's hard to believe that Assad would take the risk and even harder to believe that his Russian backers would green light it.

Doesn't really matter though, it doesn't justify the United States murdering even more Syrians in "retaliation".

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Can you prove who used chemical weapons in syria? Or whether or not they were used at all?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Absolutely no strategic value in Assad using Chemical Weapons. It didn't happen. They've been pushing that 'Chemical Attack' meme since War began over there. It's a convenient excuse for more War. Nothing like an ole WMD accusation to work the sheep into a frenzy. They'll keep pushing this until they see a shift in poll numbers supporting their useless War. Expect the propaganda to get pretty thick from the Government/Media Complex. Stay tuned.

Actually there would be a strategic value for Assad to utilize chemical weapons, to terrorize his opposition and the civilian populace, on the flip side it would be incredibly short sighted given the risk that the United States would get involved in the Syrian Civil War on the side of the opposition. Given that it's hard to believe that Assad would take the risk and even harder to believe that his Russian backers would green light it.

Doesn't really matter though, it doesn't justify the United States murdering even more Syrians in "retaliation".

The US is already involved in arming the rebel al qaeda. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by the assad regime in the use of chemical weapons.

 

[Richard-H]

I have already heard that before, didn't I?
And the screeching then of the today's cheering crowd

I am not convinced that the Syrian Army used them either. I hope that there is a very unbiased and professional investigation before anyone jumps to any conclusions.

The prime evidence of who is responsible would be in how these chemicals were delivered. If they were delivered by multiple missiles, it would be hard to believe that anybody but the Syrian military had that capability, however there are a lot of low tech ways to deliver chemical weapons.

I'd also hope that instead of the U.S. acting unilaterally, we pressure the Russians and Chinese into cooperating with whatever action is taken. We should emphasize that this is not about Syria, it's about chemical weapons.

 

[Edgetho]

Meanwhile, back in the Real World....

Russia and China both warn the US against hitting Libya.

If you want to learn about the news regarding the piece of fucking shit ruining our Country and trying to start a stupid and senseless War with Russia, you gotta go to British Newspapers.

the DISGUSTING FILTH in our LSM is worse than useless. They used to protect America from despotic politicians, now they protect despotic dimocrap scum from America.

BBC News - Syria crisis: Russia and China step up warning over strike

Russia and China have stepped up their warnings against military intervention in Syria, with Moscow saying any such action would have "catastrophic consequences" for the region.

As to gas, the US considers Gas a WMD while many other Countries do not.

The US would consider a Gas attack on us to warrant retaliation through the use of any and all weapons, including 200 Megaton Nukes.

It's worth getting an International view on what's happening over there.

The Russians are claiming that the US promised reconciliations would be made with Russia over the Libya Issue at the Geneva I talks and that the scumbag motherfuckers in the current regime reneged on their promise.

Putin is pissed.

Some (including me) think that is the reason behind the cancellation of talks between Putin and the scumbag-in-chief.

Imagine that, a scumbag dimocrap lying? Whoever would think that?

We have rank amateur fuckwads running our government, people.

If we get through this, it will be a miracle.

I don't know how serious the Russians are but it would be beyond stupid to discount their Military power and technology.

The last people that did that were...... Nazis. And the Russians haven't forgotten how the Nazis stabbed them in the back

How'd that work out for them?

 

[paulitician]

Absolutely no strategic value in Assad using Chemical Weapons. It didn't happen. They've been pushing that 'Chemical Attack' meme since War began over there. It's a convenient excuse for more War. Nothing like an ole WMD accusation to work the sheep into a frenzy. They'll keep pushing this until they see a shift in poll numbers supporting their useless War. Expect the propaganda to get pretty thick from the Government/Media Complex. Stay tuned.

Actually there would be a strategic value for Assad to utilize chemical weapons, to terrorize his opposition and the civilian populace, on the flip side it would be incredibly short sighted given the risk that the United States would get involved in the Syrian Civil War on the side of the opposition. Given that it's hard to believe that Assad would take the risk and even harder to believe that his Russian backers would green light it.

Doesn't really matter though, it doesn't justify the United States murdering even more Syrians in "retaliation".

Chemical Weapons were not used by Assad. I'm very confident in making that assertion. It's a No-Win for him. He knows that. No strategic value in it. It's just another War Propaganda sham. Gotta get the sheep in line to support another War. WMD accusations seem to accomplish that quite nicely. More critical thinking needs to take place in situations like this. When you really think about, you quickly realize it serves no purpose for Assad to use Chemical Weapons. It just didn't happen.

 

[NightFox]

What proof do you have of these assertions?

It only takes a bit of logic to tell that you're taking a wild guess. You believe that the super powers have stock piles of chemical weapons, but you certainly do not know that as a fact.

Actually I do know that for a fact, they have on more than one occasion admitted as much and having served in the military I was privy to the tactical and strategic SOP for our use of NBC in the event of a conflict.

It is highly doubtful that the super powers have stock piles of chemical weapons.

It's not highly doubtful it's a fact that we have existing stockpiles of them and we had contingency plans to utilize them (along with tactical nuclear weapons) in defense of Western Europe had the Soviets decided to invade.

I find it hard to believe that you have any direct knowledge of any plans for the use of chemical or biological weapons by the U.S. military.

I don't really care what you believe, the U.S. military trained regularly for NBC and we were all made aware of the tactical and strategic realities regarding the use of NBC by both by our own forces and that of the Soviets in the event of a direct conflict, It wasn't a big secret during the cold war or anything.

I'm sure that the U.S. military has procedures to defend against such an attack, but it's doubtful that we have any plans for using them as weapons. The political fallout alone would be devastating.

The fall out was unpleasant the Western Europeans (especially the Germans) were up in arms about the potential use of chemical and tactical nuclear weapons on their soil, it didn't however deter the U.S. strategy for defending Western Europe with them though. We didn't officially eschew the use of chemical weapons until 1991 and even after that (including today) we still have not destroyed all of our cold war stockpile (we still have a quarter or so) and neither have the Russians. We don't have the moral high ground on chemical weapons, nor do we have ANY justification for murdering Syrians that are not directly threatening us.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I am not convinced that the Syrian Army used them either. I hope that there is a very unbiased and professional investigation before anyone jumps to any conclusions.

Too late. The Obama adminsitration already declared Assad guilty and told the UN inspectors to abort. Even if the UN did conduct its inspection, it would only determine whether or not chem weapons were used, not who used them

Assad is already marked guilty because the PNAC demands it. Obama being a good corportist puppet, is making the architects of that plan very happy. He is doing what he is suppose to do.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is a great deal of incentive for the terrorists to use chemical weapons though. They can get more arms, more aid, and perhaps get the US to do what they have been unable to do. They want to put in a fundamentalist Islamic government.

obama's latest insanity is being opposed by both China and Russia. Maybe they will do something about it.

 

[bripat9643]

If Syria (or whoever used the chemical weapons in Syria), goes unpunished, it means that the use of chemical weapons will most likely be used in conflicts all over the world. This is the real issue.

Chemical Weapons Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does a failure to retaliate mean that the Chemical Weapons Convention is dead?

Since when do liberals give a shit about dictators using chemical weapons on their own people?

 

[bripat9643]

I am not convinced that the Syrian Army used them either. I hope that there is a very unbiased and professional investigation before anyone jumps to any conclusions.

Too late. The Obama adminsitration already declared Assad guilty and told the UN inspectors to abort. Even if the UN did conduct its inspection, it would only determine whether or not chem weapons were used, not who used them

Assad is already marked guilty because the PNAC demands it. Obama being a good corportist puppet, is making the architects of that plan very happy. He is doing what he is suppose to do.

Actually there is some evidence that the rebels used the chemical weapons. The type of explosive used to disperse the chemicals wasn't the kind you find in conventional chemical munitions.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Who cares if they gas each other.

 

[Edgetho]

If Syria (or whoever used the chemical weapons in Syria), goes unpunished, it means that the use of chemical weapons will most likely be used in conflicts all over the world. This is the real issue.

Chemical Weapons Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does a failure to retaliate mean that the Chemical Weapons Convention is dead?

Since when do liberals give a shit about dictators using chemical weapons on their own people?

When they have a blow-up doll of their cult leader in bed with them.

Which most of them do.

 

[Richard-H]

Though I'm generally a supporter of the President, in this case I have my doubts.

It would not make any sense for the Assad regime to use chemical weapons, knowing that Pres. Obama is under enormous political pressure to take action (mostly by wingnuts like McCain). We almost certainly have the capability to destroy the Syrian air force - that would be an enormous aid to the rebels.

It's also unlikely (as was stated earlier), that Assad would use them without Putin giving the green light.

It seems to me that either:
1. These chemical weapons were used by the rebels to draw the U.S. into the conflict.

2. There is some great regional strategy for the middle east, by the western powers, that requires the destruction of the Assad regime.

3. We are being drawn into a trap by the Russians.