Why am I supposed to care about Chemical Weapons in Syria?

[SavannahMann]

I don't think you're far in studies of second world war. It's curious how Americans always think it was all about them, Stalin and Hitler. Yes, that is all there was to it. Job well done. Thank God we don't have to do that again.. We'll see about that.

Because it is a war crime and America is supporting the side committing the war crimes; Assad and Russia. It is true that there is a rumour ISIS might have the recourses to make some of them, but not all of them. Plenty of observers have seen the planes and nearly all suspicion falls on Assad.

I thought it was sad when I read a story some woman told about them hiding children into the ground and coming back for them and they were dead from the chemicals with no sign of injury. There's something ghost like about it. And it takes time to die of it.

Still, if you have no shame you don't have to care. Ignore it. I don't know why you want to brag about it though.

A diary from Germany told the story of firebombing the cities during World War II. A young girl asked her Mother if they were going to be dead now? In Leningrad a girl wrote when her family died from starvation. The survivors ate the dead trying to continue to live. In Stalingrad the Soviet Soldiers found three children in bed together. The first soldier said more dead bodies. One of the children spoke up and said we aren't dead yet.

War is pain, suffering, and death. Soldiers on the German and Russian side both wrote that pain is universal.

If we get more directly involved we will spread even more pain. If we win, then the dictatorial thug who takes over will be just as bad as Assad, and probably much worse.

There aren't any good guys fighting in Syria. The best we can hope to accomplish is continuing the suffering, prolonging it. If we win we continue it even worse than it is now. We aren't supporting the forces of light and justice and democracy. We are supporting Islamic jihadist nutters who if they became a little more civilized might qualify as barbarians.



Why do I want them to win again? So the Islamic nutters can keep girls uneducated and mutilated? So men are free to beat women?

Assad is bad. None of those fighting him are any better. Most are worse, much worse.

So why are you so heartless that you want women to be mutilated and beaten and killed? Why are you so cruel that you want homosexuals murdered for being gay, tortured to death I should say.

Well at least you claim to care, about what I have no idea.

"There is no good guy". Why not you then?

But I believe the point was why do you have to care about chemical weapons being used.. you pulled the line a little a are off the point. I don't think you know anything about war, the second world or or the Syrian war.

I fought in wars. So my knowledge is fairly personal. How is it worse to die from chemical weapons than suffocating because the firebombing consumed the oxygen? Is choking to death on Sarin worse than choking to death from your lungs filling with blood from gunshot?

I know about war. I can tell you there is no good way to die in it. Sometimes the death is instantaneous. Mostly the death takes some time. You die over minutes or hours. I've crouched there with my finger stuck in a hole trying to stop the bleeding. I've seen medics cut down a vein. Do you know what that means? The patient has lost so much blood that their veins have collapsed. You cut into the arm, then open the vein and tape the IV in place to try and force more fluids into the body.

I've watched death come into the eyes. I promise you they did not care one damned bit that the wound was from a weapon and ammunition approved by the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

I've smelled the death on the battlefield. The rotting stench of decaying bodies. There was nothing glamorous or heroic in that stink.

War is awful. And you should avoid one if at all possible. If you must fight then make the war and the suffering as short as possible. Win as quickly as you can.

There are things worse than war. And only if those things are threatened should you fight.

Let the Islamic jihad nuts die. As shown in Libya the absence of the dictator is terrible. That war has been going on longer than Syria. Do you think the people in Libya are grateful that there is a civil war going on for years?

Libya

It's been six years since Hillary announced we came and he died. People are still fighting. People are still dying. People are still suffering.

How are they better off now? How are the Libyan people better off? Where are the valiant honorable revolutionary leaders? There never were any. There never was a glorious Libyan George Washington.

They went from bad to worse. They went from stable to anarchy. Syria will go the same way if Assad falls. Too many factions who will fight amongst themselves with the people in between.

You saw a story about a dead child. I've seen the dead children.

 

[SavannahMann]

The reason I ask is the same one I had when President Obama was faced with this question. I honestly don't care. What happens in Syria doesn't have a damned thing to do with anyone in the US.

The truth about World War II was on the Eastern Front, there were no good guys. Hitler was a bad guy, and so was Stalin. Both were totalitarian dictators. Both were incredibly cruel to their own people, and those who were conquered. Both were brutal. And both sides committed atrocities. There were no good guys on the Eastern Front, there was only one difference. Hitler was our enemy, Stalin was our ally. Political happenstance just made it so the enemy of our enemy was to be our friend.

In Syria, there are no good guys. Assad is a bad guy, and the people fighting him are baddies too. The people in Eastern Europe couldn't tell you the difference between the brutalities and atrocities of the German Army compared to the brutalities and atrocities of the Russian Army. New management, same rules.

If you want to really slice the meat thin, you could argue that Hitler was a minuscule bit worse. But that meat would be nearly transparent to get to that level of thin. Even then it wouldn't be all that conclusive.

I don't think you can say that with Assad. No matter how bad he is, letting the Terrorists of ISIS or the FSA have control of Syria is even worse, if only marginally so.

So why should I care? Because people died? Is it far more moral to die from gunshots, concussion from explosives, shrapnel from bombs, starvation, malnutrition, dehydration, or disease? Children died before the gas attack in the war. Children died since from reasons totally unrelated to chemical weapons.

Dan Carlin has a podcast. It's called Hardcore History. One of his episodes is called Logical Insanity. He asks the question about Japan in World War II. Was it more moral to firebomb the cities than it was to drop the Atomic Bomb? He reads diary excerpts about how bad the firebombing was. How heartbreaking the reactions of the people were.

Dan Carlin is right. At what point does the suffering reach the limit? When does it reach ten on the scale, or eleven if you are a Spinal Tap fan? At what point has the population in a war simply reached the limit of suffering where nothing else could possibly make them suffer anymore?

I didn't care about Syrian gas attacks when Obama was President, and I voted for Obama. Why should I care now? My opinion then, as now is the same. The Russians are never going to pull out of Syria. Their only Navy base in the entire Mediterranean Sea is there. It would be as if our Naval Base in Italy was threatened, or if the Naval base in Gibralter for the British. Great Britain just had their territory of Gibralter threatened by the EU, and in response promised all out war to defend it. A postage stamp of a territory. Worth fighting for regardless.

So you outraged folks, tell me why I should care. Tell me why dying from shrapnel from bombs is somehow way more preferable to gas. Tell me why dying from starvation is better. Tell me why we should care.

Love that podcast.

I couldn’t agree more. The only reason it matters so much to some is the political scorekeeping. Trump was supposed to show us how it was done.

Nothing in Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia (and I’m leaving out about 150 other countries) is worth one drop of American blood.

it is a great source of information.

 

[Contumacious]

The reason I ask is the same one I had when President Obama was faced with this question. I honestly don't care. What happens in Syria doesn't have a damned thing to do with anyone in the US.

The truth about World War II was on the Eastern Front, there were no good guys. Hitler was a bad guy, and so was Stalin. Both were totalitarian dictators. Both were incredibly cruel to their own people, and those who were conquered. Both were brutal. And both sides committed atrocities. There were no good guys on the Eastern Front, there was only one difference. Hitler was our enemy, Stalin was our ally. Political happenstance just made it so the enemy of our enemy was to be our friend.

In Syria, there are no good guys. Assad is a bad guy, and the people fighting him are baddies too. The people in Eastern Europe couldn't tell you the difference between the brutalities and atrocities of the German Army compared to the brutalities and atrocities of the Russian Army. New management, same rules.

If you want to really slice the meat thin, you could argue that Hitler was a minuscule bit worse. But that meat would be nearly transparent to get to that level of thin. Even then it wouldn't be all that conclusive.

I don't think you can say that with Assad. No matter how bad he is, letting the Terrorists of ISIS or the FSA have control of Syria is even worse, if only marginally so.

So why should I care? Because people died? Is it far more moral to die from gunshots, concussion from explosives, shrapnel from bombs, starvation, malnutrition, dehydration, or disease? Children died before the gas attack in the war. Children died since from reasons totally unrelated to chemical weapons.

Dan Carlin has a podcast. It's called Hardcore History. One of his episodes is called Logical Insanity. He asks the question about Japan in World War II. Was it more moral to firebomb the cities than it was to drop the Atomic Bomb? He reads diary excerpts about how bad the firebombing was. How heartbreaking the reactions of the people were.

Dan Carlin is right. At what point does the suffering reach the limit? When does it reach ten on the scale, or eleven if you are a Spinal Tap fan? At what point has the population in a war simply reached the limit of suffering where nothing else could possibly make them suffer anymore?

I didn't care about Syrian gas attacks when Obama was President, and I voted for Obama. Why should I care now? My opinion then, as now is the same. The Russians are never going to pull out of Syria. Their only Navy base in the entire Mediterranean Sea is there. It would be as if our Naval Base in Italy was threatened, or if the Naval base in Gibralter for the British. Great Britain just had their territory of Gibralter threatened by the EU, and in response promised all out war to defend it. A postage stamp of a territory. Worth fighting for regardless.

So you outraged folks, tell me why I should care. Tell me why dying from shrapnel from bombs is somehow way more preferable to gas. Tell me why dying from starvation is better. Tell me why we should care.

WW3


.

 

[busybee01]

It is probably a false flag designed to entangle the USA in another useless expensive deadly war.

Fuck that.

You and your false flags are a bunch of BS. Take yout LOONEY TUNE conspiracy theories and go to a insane asylum. That is where they belong. Or are the pictures of children suffering from gas attacks fake?

FUCK THAT!!

 

[Seawytch]

It is probably a false flag designed to entangle the USA in another useless expensive deadly war.

Fuck that.

I remember at the time Obama drew his famous red line in the sand, promising to attack if they used WMD's. Then once Syria used them, it got 24/7 media attention as the media was used to generate support for the war effort. Then something inexplicable happened. Poll numbers did not increase for support for the war. The media's effort to generate support for war failed.

Then President spineless failed to back up his promise to attack Assad.

Of coarse, Obama got a pass on not attacking, even though he promised to, and Trump will get crucified if he also refuses to attack.

It's no different that Obama restricting immigration with nothing said about it but when Trump does it it's racist.as the courts stop him

The part you're leaving out is where President Obama asked Congress for authorization.

Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria

Now why would you conveniently leave that out?

 

[gipper]

It is probably a false flag designed to entangle the USA in another useless expensive deadly war.

Fuck that.

I remember at the time Obama drew his famous red line in the sand, promising to attack if they used WMD's. Then once Syria used them, it got 24/7 media attention as the media was used to generate support for the war effort. Then something inexplicable happened. Poll numbers did not increase for support for the war. The media's effort to generate support for war failed.

Then President spineless failed to back up his promise to attack Assad.

Of coarse, Obama got a pass on not attacking, even though he promised to, and Trump will get crucified if he also refuses to attack.

It's no different that Obama restricting immigration with nothing said about it but when Trump does it it's racist.as the courts stop him

The part you're leaving out is where President Obama asked Congress for authorization.

Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria

Now why would you conveniently leave that out?

Why did he not ask congress when he attacked Libya? How about when he attacked Syria?

 

[Seawytch]

US troops are in Syria. We don't know how many because the liar in chief has decided to make it a secret.

The same people saying we shouldn't be there will now say they should be there because Trump does it.

Just proving Trump's hypocrisy.

On The Record: President Trump Vs. Private Citizen Trump On Syria

 

[Votto]

It is probably a false flag designed to entangle the USA in another useless expensive deadly war.

Fuck that.

I remember at the time Obama drew his famous red line in the sand, promising to attack if they used WMD's. Then once Syria used them, it got 24/7 media attention as the media was used to generate support for the war effort. Then something inexplicable happened. Poll numbers did not increase for support for the war. The media's effort to generate support for war failed.

Then President spineless failed to back up his promise to attack Assad.

Of coarse, Obama got a pass on not attacking, even though he promised to, and Trump will get crucified if he also refuses to attack.

It's no different that Obama restricting immigration with nothing said about it but when Trump does it it's racist.as the courts stop him

The part you're leaving out is where President Obama asked Congress for authorization.

Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria

Now why would you conveniently leave that out?

Why did he not ask congress when he attacked Libya? How about when he attacked Syria?

Cuz Libya was not a war...........to Obama.

Try telling that to Gaddafi who is now a daisy pusher.

 

[busybee01]

How about because some of us are human beings. For the world to stand by and do nothing is criminal. This attack occurs less than a week after Trump's people said removing Assad was no longer a objective. Clearly that emboldened Assad. Don't forget the other authors of this. The mullahs in Iran and Putin. They are backing Assad and maybe they supplied the chemical weapons.

 

[Seawytch]

It is probably a false flag designed to entangle the USA in another useless expensive deadly war.

Fuck that.

I remember at the time Obama drew his famous red line in the sand, promising to attack if they used WMD's. Then once Syria used them, it got 24/7 media attention as the media was used to generate support for the war effort. Then something inexplicable happened. Poll numbers did not increase for support for the war. The media's effort to generate support for war failed.

Then President spineless failed to back up his promise to attack Assad.

Of coarse, Obama got a pass on not attacking, even though he promised to, and Trump will get crucified if he also refuses to attack.

It's no different that Obama restricting immigration with nothing said about it but when Trump does it it's racist.as the courts stop him

The part you're leaving out is where President Obama asked Congress for authorization.

Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria

Now why would you conveniently leave that out?

Why did he not ask congress when he attacked Libya? How about when he attacked Syria?

Because he didn't think he had to. That was 2011. In 2013, perhaps learning from his past mistakes with Libya, he went to Congress for approval. Inconvenient truth for you isn't it?

 

[gipper]

It is probably a false flag designed to entangle the USA in another useless expensive deadly war.

Fuck that.

I remember at the time Obama drew his famous red line in the sand, promising to attack if they used WMD's. Then once Syria used them, it got 24/7 media attention as the media was used to generate support for the war effort. Then something inexplicable happened. Poll numbers did not increase for support for the war. The media's effort to generate support for war failed.

Then President spineless failed to back up his promise to attack Assad.

Of coarse, Obama got a pass on not attacking, even though he promised to, and Trump will get crucified if he also refuses to attack.

It's no different that Obama restricting immigration with nothing said about it but when Trump does it it's racist.as the courts stop him

The part you're leaving out is where President Obama asked Congress for authorization.

Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria

Now why would you conveniently leave that out?

Why did he not ask congress when he attacked Libya? How about when he attacked Syria?

Because he didn't think he had to. That was 2011. In 2013, perhaps learning from his past mistakes with Libya, he went to Congress for approval. Inconvenient truth for you isn't it?

He didn't think he had to....LMFAO!!!

Liberals....ugh!!!

 

[gipper]

How about because some of us are human beings. For the world to stand by and do nothing is criminal. This attack occurs less than a week after Trump's people said removing Assad was no longer a objective. Clearly that emboldened Assad. Don't forget the other authors of this. The mullahs in Iran and Putin. They are backing Assad and maybe they supplied the chemical weapons.

Have you failed to learn anything these past few decades ? The ruling class in the US removes the dictator only to make matters WORSE. WAKE UP!

 

[idb]

The reason I ask is the same one I had when President Obama was faced with this question. I honestly don't care. What happens in Syria doesn't have a damned thing to do with anyone in the US.

The truth about World War II was on the Eastern Front, there were no good guys. Hitler was a bad guy, and so was Stalin. Both were totalitarian dictators. Both were incredibly cruel to their own people, and those who were conquered. Both were brutal. And both sides committed atrocities. There were no good guys on the Eastern Front, there was only one difference. Hitler was our enemy, Stalin was our ally. Political happenstance just made it so the enemy of our enemy was to be our friend.

In Syria, there are no good guys. Assad is a bad guy, and the people fighting him are baddies too. The people in Eastern Europe couldn't tell you the difference between the brutalities and atrocities of the German Army compared to the brutalities and atrocities of the Russian Army. New management, same rules.

If you want to really slice the meat thin, you could argue that Hitler was a minuscule bit worse. But that meat would be nearly transparent to get to that level of thin. Even then it wouldn't be all that conclusive.

I don't think you can say that with Assad. No matter how bad he is, letting the Terrorists of ISIS or the FSA have control of Syria is even worse, if only marginally so.

So why should I care? Because people died? Is it far more moral to die from gunshots, concussion from explosives, shrapnel from bombs, starvation, malnutrition, dehydration, or disease? Children died before the gas attack in the war. Children died since from reasons totally unrelated to chemical weapons.

Dan Carlin has a podcast. It's called Hardcore History. One of his episodes is called Logical Insanity. He asks the question about Japan in World War II. Was it more moral to firebomb the cities than it was to drop the Atomic Bomb? He reads diary excerpts about how bad the firebombing was. How heartbreaking the reactions of the people were.

Dan Carlin is right. At what point does the suffering reach the limit? When does it reach ten on the scale, or eleven if you are a Spinal Tap fan? At what point has the population in a war simply reached the limit of suffering where nothing else could possibly make them suffer anymore?

I didn't care about Syrian gas attacks when Obama was President, and I voted for Obama. Why should I care now? My opinion then, as now is the same. The Russians are never going to pull out of Syria. Their only Navy base in the entire Mediterranean Sea is there. It would be as if our Naval Base in Italy was threatened, or if the Naval base in Gibralter for the British. Great Britain just had their territory of Gibralter threatened by the EU, and in response promised all out war to defend it. A postage stamp of a territory. Worth fighting for regardless.

So you outraged folks, tell me why I should care. Tell me why dying from shrapnel from bombs is somehow way more preferable to gas. Tell me why dying from starvation is better. Tell me why we should care.

Maybe a sense of humanity?

 

[SavannahMann]

How about because some of us are human beings. For the world to stand by and do nothing is criminal. This attack occurs less than a week after Trump's people said removing Assad was no longer a objective. Clearly that emboldened Assad. Don't forget the other authors of this. The mullahs in Iran and Putin. They are backing Assad and maybe they supplied the chemical weapons.

Ok. Let's pretend that is a justification. What happens then? We start bombing Assad and Russia starts bombing our troops who are there training the Islamic jihadi terrorists. Now what happens then?

Does Putin do nothing? Iran mines the straits again. Oil tankers blow up again. We use F-22 to shoot down Russian planes. The Russians sink some of our Navy and we are in a global war where billions of people die.

China takes Taiwan. North Korea takes the South and where are we then? A wall on the Mexican Border? WE would be building bomb shelters in outbreaks backyards again.

One lesson every kid learns on the playground is don't start a fight you can't win.

Why should we risk all of that so some terrorists can become the leaders of Syria? Make no mistake. The folks we are arming and supporting are terrorists. If you don't like Iran and the human rights abuses you are going to hate the folks we are helping. They throw suspected homosexuals off the rooftops of buildings. They punish any girls who try to get an education and kill the educators. They are barbarians. There is no way you can think Assad is worse than that.

These are not the forces of Democracy. These are not people driven by a belief in human rights. They are at least as bad as Assad and IMO much worse.

 

[Dschrute3]

Because you're supposed to be a loyal Perpetual War dupe. That's why. You're supposed to support all wars all the time. And if you don't, you're a dern 'America-Hater.' This Syrian farce is another False Flag lie. Assad would not have ordered a chemical weapon attack. There's no upside for him in doing that. He's currently winning the war. Why would he jeopardize that?

It all gets back to the misguided and illegal 'Regime Change' policy. We don't belong telling any nations who their leaders should be. We have no business being in Syria. We should leave immediately. In fact, we need to adopt a disengagement policy in the Middle East all-together. I'm completely over the endless war there.

Thank you to the OP. Good post.

 

[Seawytch]

It is probably a false flag designed to entangle the USA in another useless expensive deadly war.

Fuck that.

I remember at the time Obama drew his famous red line in the sand, promising to attack if they used WMD's. Then once Syria used them, it got 24/7 media attention as the media was used to generate support for the war effort. Then something inexplicable happened. Poll numbers did not increase for support for the war. The media's effort to generate support for war failed.

Then President spineless failed to back up his promise to attack Assad.

Of coarse, Obama got a pass on not attacking, even though he promised to, and Trump will get crucified if he also refuses to attack.

It's no different that Obama restricting immigration with nothing said about it but when Trump does it it's racist.as the courts stop him

The part you're leaving out is where President Obama asked Congress for authorization.

Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria

Now why would you conveniently leave that out?

Why did he not ask congress when he attacked Libya? How about when he attacked Syria?

Because he didn't think he had to. That was 2011. In 2013, perhaps learning from his past mistakes with Libya, he went to Congress for approval. Inconvenient truth for you isn't it?

He didn't think he had to....LMFAO!!!

Liberals....ugh!!!

Correct. You didn't read the link. #Sad

Presidents in modern times have used military force both with and without Congressional authorization. George Bush and George W. Bush both won votes from lawmakers before wars with Iraq, and Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton launched strikes against Libya, Afghanistan and Kosovo without asking permission.

Although Mr. Obama said as a candidate that a president has no power to launch a military attack except to stop “an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” he acted unilaterally in Libya in 2011 and had no plans to act differently in Syria this time. But he found it much harder to proceed alone, given the British vote and polls showing that the vast majority of Americans want Congress to decide.

 

[radical right]

It all gets back to the misguided and illegal 'Regime Change' policy. We don't belong telling any nations who their leaders should be. We have no business being in Syria. We should leave immediately. In fact, we need to adopt a disengagement policy in the Middle East all-together. I'm completely over the endless war there.

Strangely that was one of the major themes of Trumps inaugural address.

The Inaugural Address

We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power.

From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.

From this moment on, it’s going to be America First.

Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families.

We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.

We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.

We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones – and unite the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.

At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.

Donald J. Trump.

 

[Dschrute3]

It all gets back to the misguided and illegal 'Regime Change' policy. We don't belong telling any nations who their leaders should be. We have no business being in Syria. We should leave immediately. In fact, we need to adopt a disengagement policy in the Middle East all-together. I'm completely over the endless war there.

Strangely that was one of the major themes of Trumps inaugural address.

The Inaugural Address

We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power.

From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.

From this moment on, it’s going to be America First.

Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families.

We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.

We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.

We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones – and unite the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.

At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.

Donald J. Trump.

Well in fairness, Trump isn't responsible for the 'Regime Change' policy in Syria. That was implemented long before he became President. But what he does from here on out, is on him. I hope he chooses to disengage. We don't belong in Syria. We never did.

 

[Votto]

I remember at the time Obama drew his famous red line in the sand, promising to attack if they used WMD's. Then once Syria used them, it got 24/7 media attention as the media was used to generate support for the war effort. Then something inexplicable happened. Poll numbers did not increase for support for the war. The media's effort to generate support for war failed.

Then President spineless failed to back up his promise to attack Assad.

Of coarse, Obama got a pass on not attacking, even though he promised to, and Trump will get crucified if he also refuses to attack.

It's no different that Obama restricting immigration with nothing said about it but when Trump does it it's racist.as the courts stop him

The part you're leaving out is where President Obama asked Congress for authorization.

Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria

Now why would you conveniently leave that out?

Why did he not ask congress when he attacked Libya? How about when he attacked Syria?

Because he didn't think he had to. That was 2011. In 2013, perhaps learning from his past mistakes with Libya, he went to Congress for approval. Inconvenient truth for you isn't it?

He didn't think he had to....LMFAO!!!

Liberals....ugh!!!

Correct. You didn't read the link. #Sad

Presidents in modern times have used military force both with and without Congressional authorization. George Bush and George W. Bush both won votes from lawmakers before wars with Iraq, and Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton launched strikes against Libya, Afghanistan and Kosovo without asking permission.

Although Mr. Obama said as a candidate that a president has no power to launch a military attack except to stop “an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” he acted unilaterally in Libya in 2011 and had no plans to act differently in Syria this time. But he found it much harder to proceed alone, given the British vote and polls showing that the vast majority of Americans want Congress to decide.

Under the War Powers Act Obama was obligated under law to notify Congress after so many days. He failed to do so.

His defense was saying that it was not really a war.

I don't recall Bush or Reagan doing that.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You've never dealt with criminals much have you? Or you don't really understand the "end game."

Syria ADMITTED they made and had chemical weapons they were not supposed to have under international law. FACT

The UN set up a plan to get their chemical weapons and destroy them. FACT

Several countries got involved and helped to get them and destroy them. FACT

Saddam did too....W really duped you too didn't he.

So I just proved you wrong and you changed the subject. How about you refute what I said instead?

So because Assad had chemical weapons he used them in 2012...that is your conclusion. That is nonsense.

He had chemical weapons he was not supposed to make or have... and reports from 3 different countries that investigated the attack said that the rockets were surface to surface from the Syrian government.

can I get a link to that? Just one would suffice. I would like to know which one it was. The rebels have captured ALOT of weapons from the Syrian govt.

No. They did not capture ALOT, because "alot" is not a word.