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

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Except it does have to do with the US. You see the terrorist acts in the US, they're linked to things happening in Syria.

Ok. So then killing the terrorists as quickly as possible would seem to mean I should support Assad right?

As usual, RWNJs can't tell the difference between innocent people and terrorists.

Congress refused President Obama's requests to go after Pooting's buddy Assad. And now? Unlikely drumpf will go against his owner, Pooting.

That means the RWNJs who want to kill innocent people, including children probably agree with you and go right on supporting both Assad and Pooting.

I'm glad there is no God but I'm sorry that RWNJs are not human beings.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Markle]

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.

You need to go back and view some history from WW-I.

What you are saying above is almost word for word what was said about Poland in the Fall of 1939. How did that workout?

 

[radical right]

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.

The only thing worst than enacting a policy of regime change, is to reverse that policy. Akin to taking somebody off the FBI's most wanted list, or dropping the reward on their head. It tells the bad guy they don't have to worry about being brought to justice.

 

[radical right]

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.

Bush and Reagan just outright lied about the basis for their acts of war.

 

[Markle]

Congress refused President Obama's requests to go after Pooting's buddy Assad. And now? Unlikely drumpf will go against his owner, Pooting.

Kindly show us the congressional votes please. Along with, of course, the source and link.

 

[Markle]

Bush and Reagan just outright lied about the basis for their acts of war.

For your edification. Questions?

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
- President Clinton in 1998 “

[…], when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.”
- President Clinton , Jan. 27, 1998 – State of the Union

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 .

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqis nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

“Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”

“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”

- President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998


"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."
- Madeline Albright, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "

Update: September 8, 2005 - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser was sentenced to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them..

[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 .

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 .

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 .


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 .

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 .

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 .

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 .

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003" (Currently President Barack Hussein Obama’s Secretary of State)

I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003


"Saddam is gone and good riddance," former President Bill Clinton said yesterday, but he urged President Bush to resist trying to get even with nations that opposed the war.


"There are German and French soldiers in Afghanistan today. Does the President want them to come home?" Clinton said at a Manhattan forum on corporate integrity.


Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)




He [President Clinton] praised Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for their handling of the war, but said Bush should have waited longer before attacking for the "chance that either [Saddam Hussein] would have disarmed or . . . we would have had far more members of the Security Council with us."


Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found.


"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.

- Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003

"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010

How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going? How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President? Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities. Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.






And now the Obama administration wants to TAKE CREDIT for the Iraq war…whew….

 

[radical right]

Congress refused President Obama's requests to go after Pooting's buddy Assad. And now? Unlikely drumpf will go against his owner, Pooting.

Kindly show us the congressional votes please. Along with, of course, the source and link.

Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons - Wikipedia

Speculation over bill passage
There was immediate speculation by the New York Times that Obama would fail to get approval from Congress for intervention in Syria as soon as he announced that he would seek such approval.[33] It called it "one of the riskiest gambles of his presidency."[33] On the day it was formally filed, September 6, it was still unclear whether the resolution would pass, with many senators having already announced their opposition.

Deal to remove chemical weapons
On 10 September 2013, military intervention was averted when the Syrian government accepted a US–Russian negotiated deal to turn over "every single bit" of its chemical weapons stockpiles for destruction and declared its intention to join the Chemical Weapons Convention.[50][51] The bill never received a floor vote.

 

[radical right]

Bush and Reagan just outright lied about the basis for their acts of war.

For your edification. Questions?

(edited out the spam)

.

Despite the lengthy and often posted lists, the bottom line is Bush had no proof of WMD's, pulling out the inspectors before they could prove it. And secondly there were no WMD's after taking over the country so we could look for ourselves. As Bush later said, they used WMD's as something people could coalesce around.

 

[Dschrute3]

Bottom line is, you don't support this Globalist Elite 'Permanent War' Agenda, you'll quickly be labelled an 'America-Hater.' We never had any business being in Syria. It was never a threat to the US. But here we are, getting set for full invasion. When will Americans demand an end to this Endless War?

 

[Markle]

Assad is no threat to us. He never was.

Your naivete is cute, really!

True, Assad is no threat to you. In 1939, Adolph Hitler was no threat to the world either.

I'm not saying Assad is a threat to the world. However, his use of, allegedly Sarin gas, is horrific.

In and of itself it means nothing. With the United States and the rest of the World doing NOTHING, what message does that send to Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, and the list goes on?

 

[Markle]

When will Americans demand an end to this Endless War?

When will fatal Islamic terrorist attacks end?

 

[Dschrute3]

Assad is no threat to us. He never was.

Your naivete is cute, really!

True, Assad is no threat to you. In 1939, Adolph Hitler was no threat to the world either.

I'm not saying Assad is a threat to the world. However, his use of, allegedly Sarin gas, is horrific.

In and of itself it means nothing. With the United States and the rest of the World doing NOTHING, what message does that send to Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, and the list goes on?

That's pathetic. Syria was never a threat to the US. This is just another Bullshit war.

 

[Dschrute3]

When will Americans demand an end to this Endless War?

When will fatal Islamic terrorist attacks end?

The Permanent War agenda has been going on long before the 'Islamic Terrorist' Boogeyman

 

[Markle]

Sending U.S. troops to Syria would be a disaster, but Turkish troops could be successful.

Read some real news instead of your Progressive jokes.

We already have troops in Syria and have been for a while.

From the New York Times, the Progressive bible.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/us/politics/us-adds-200-troops-syria-isis.html?_r=0

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Awww how clever!

 

[Dschrute3]

How many endless wars we up to now? Man, when will Americans say enough is enough?

 

[Dschrute3]

You don't support the Permanent War agenda, you done be an 'America-Hating Son-Bitch.' That's how too many misguided American Warmongers view things. It's very sad. Our Founding Fathers would not support this absurd aggressive foreign interventionism.

 

[Dschrute3]

Why are we in Syria? Most Americans can't answer that question. That's how awful our foreign policy is.

 

[Markle]

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

That was proven false 1914, again in 1939 and we now have a world economy.

 

[Dschrute3]

You'll care, or you'll be labelled a dern 'America-Hater.' American Warmongers are so lost. Our Founding Fathers would not approve of this aggressive foreign interventionism. It's just wrong.