Why is Syria different? My answer.

[NYcarbineer]

Kerry does. In fact, he denies he supported it now because it was so unnecessary.

I wonder if he will be denying he supported the war in Syria by 2015.

So no Republicans/conservatives who supported the Iraq War have since admitted it was unnecessary,

despite our having proven that.

The hypocrisy in that statement lies in the fact that Democrats are now claiming this war in Syria is necessary. Despite the Republicans on this board proving otherwise.

The hypocrisy would be anyone still claiming that Iraq was necessary but claiming otherwise now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is nothing in the agreement about using CW in your own country on your own people.

The agreement only deals with war against opposing states.

So it was none of our business that Saddam used chemical weapons to kill his own people?

The difference there is that we knew he used chemical weapons. WE KNEW SADDAM HIMSELF used chemical weapons. We have no waking clue as to who used them in Syria.

That was not the other poster's claim. The other poster is claiming it was none of our business if Saddam was killing his own people with chemical weapons.

 

[georgephillip]

So you see the *cough* rebels blew it.

If they'd been smart when they were setting this up, they should have used it on Turkey.

Now that Prince keeps coming up. How the hell did he manage to "whisk away victims' to Britain so very very quickly.

For those that don't know the Prince I'm talking about, he's the Saudi Prince in the thick of things providing money and supplies to the *cough* rebels.

That sounds suspiciously like Saudi Prince Bandar Bush (again)
Bandar was one of the chief proponents of the US invasion of Iraq, and he is deeply involved with the Syrian rebels:

Saudi Arabia?s ?Chemical Bandar? behind the Chemical Attacks in Syria? | Global Research

"According to the French newspaper Le Figaro, two brigades of anti-government fighters that were trained by the CIA, Israelis, Saudis, and Jordanians crossed from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan into Syria to launch an assault, respectively on August 17 and 19, 2013.

"The US must have invested quite a lot in training both anti-government brigades. If true, some may argue that their defeat prompted the chemical weapons attack in Damascus as a contingency plan to fall back on.

"However, how they came by chemical weapons is another issue, but many trails lead to Saudi Arabia. According to the British Independent, it was Saudi Prince Bandar 'that first alerted Western allies to the alleged use of sarin gas by the Syrian regime in February 2013.'

"Turkey would apprehend Syrian militants in its territory with sarin gas, which these terrorists planned on using inside Syria. On July 22 the insurgents would also overrun Al-Assal and kill all the witnesses as part of a cover-up.

"A report by Yahya Ababneh, which was contributed to by Dale Gavlak, has collected the testimonies of witnesses who say that '“certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the gas attack.'”

Kerry was right about one thing.
The internet is making it harder for elites like himself and Bandar Bush to govern.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe because just because you can doesn't mean you should.

In all of these cases.

Gee, I am pretty sure I said that in the OP. How long did it take you to agree with me?

I've been saying it publicly for about 9 years.

Is that why you keep arguing that the chemical weapons treaty requires us to attack Syria?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Among those who supported it, nobody ever admits the Iraq War was unnecessary.

Kerry does. In fact, he denies he supported it now because it was so unnecessary.

I wonder if he will be denying he supported the war in Syria by 2015.

So no Republicans/conservatives who supported the Iraq War have since admitted it was unnecessary,

despite our having proven that.

I suggest you go back and read the OP.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

There are a few threads popping up that accuse people like me of being hypocrites for not supporting an attack on Syria. I wanted to take the time to lay out my position, and explain why I am not the hypocrite.

I was young once. I remember cheering when US Navy pilots shot down two Libyan fighters that opened fire on them. I was proud of them, and even felt a degree of kinship because I was in the Navy at the time, and wanted to share some of that glory. I grew up since then, and learned that war is not a video game.

After 9/11 I fully supported the decision to go into Afghanistan. Believe it or not, I still do, even though we did a lot of things wrong. There really wasn't enough planning about what we would do when we got there, and how we would leave. There really wasn't time to think of all the things we needed to consider before we went in, but that doesn't mean no one shouldn't have asked the questions.

I also supported the invasion of Iraq. I, like Hillary, believe it was the thing to do given what we knew at the time. I really hate to say it, but she called that one right. The thing is, we really shouldn't have gone in, and we stayed way too long, but I did support it at the time. As a side note, the only reason we left was that Bush was smart enough to obligate the US to do so before he left office. That is the one thing he got right from the mess that he made there, and I refuse to give Obama credit for it.

Now we come to Syria. I am older and, I hope, wiser than I was when I supported the invasion of Iraq. I am definitely wiser than I was when I proudly wore t-shirt emblazoned with the words "US Navy 2, Libya 0."

We shouldn't go to war simply because the president tells us it is a good idea. The writers of the Constitution knew this, which is why they left the decision to wage offensive war entirely in the hands of Congress. It is never a good idea to let one man, no matter how good we think he is, send 300 million people to war. (Yes, I know about the WPR, I am talking about the Constitution and the intent of the framers, not what Congress did in 1973.)

We need to ask questions, and get solid answers, before we attack another country. So far, no one is giving anyone the answers we need.

• What will attacking Syria accomplish?
• What if it doesn't accomplish that goal?
• Is there evidence that Assad didn't approve of the use of chemical weapons?
• If he didn't, why are we attacking him?
• If he did, why are we attacking the entire country?
• Will killing more civilians really punish Assad?
• Given the fact that Obama opposed the legal ouster of the president of Honduras, why does he support the illegal ouster of the president of Syria?
• Are the people who are fighting Assad terrorists?
• Isn't it against US law to support terrorists, even if they are fighting a guy the president doesn't like?
• What provisions exist to make sure that the existing chemical weapons do not end up in the hands of terrorists if we throw Assad out?

There are dozens of questions I have, and they all deserve some sort of answer before we get involved in another war. I am way to old to get gung ho about a war simply because the guy that wants to start it won a Nobel.

Good post and I agree with all points. However here is my biggest problem with going to war with Syria.

Obie will be the one running it. He can't even decide if he needs to go or not without seeking the validation of others before going in. Which in turn translates to he will never be able to keep up with the changing tides of an actual attack. If something goes wrong, if someone else gets involved, if things don't turn out perfectly after we have given them a two month notice of what we're going to do this guy can't handle it. He will be folded up like a cheap hooker in the corner of the room.

The biggest problem with this attack is the man in charge. He's simply not up to the challenge.

 

[midcan5]

Kinda long but I may try it in bits and pieces.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqtCOxeGAHE]Documentary BBC - A History of Syria (2013) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gee, I am pretty sure I said that in the OP. How long did it take you to agree with me?

I've been saying it publicly for about 9 years.

Is that why you keep arguing that the chemical weapons treaty requires us to attack Syria?

I never said any such thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've been saying it publicly for about 9 years.

Is that why you keep arguing that the chemical weapons treaty requires us to attack Syria?

I never said any such thing.

That wasn't you that asked all those stupid questions?

 

[g5000]

[*]What will attacking Syria accomplish?

The destruction of chemical weapons manufacturing facilities. The destruction of chemical weapon delivery vehicle manufacuturing facilities. The destruction of Syrian command, communications, and control military facilities.

And it will send a clear message to any asshole who thinks about using chemical weapons in the future.

[*]What if it doesn't accomplish that goal?

Our missiles don't miss.

[*]Is there evidence that Assad didn't approve of the use of chemical weapons?
[*]If he didn't, why are we attacking him?
[*]If he did, why are we attacking the entire country?

Where did you get the idea we are attacking Assad or the entire country?

We are attacking chemical weapons manufacturing facilities, chemical weapon delivery vehicle manufacuturing facilities, and command, communications, and control military facilities.

Assad's regime made the weapons, and used the weapons. It does not matter if Assad gave the order that day. The chemical warfare attack could not have occurred if he had not made or bought the weapons.

[*]Will killing more civilians really punish Assad?

Did killing civilians punish Hitler?

See how willfully obtuse that question sounds?

[*]Given the fact that Obama opposed the legal ouster of the president of Honduras, why does he support the illegal ouster of the president of Syria?

Honduras was a coup. I don't know how you get the idea Zelaya's ouster was legal. He was democratically elected, and then overthrown by a coup.

Assad's presidency was inherited from his father, who got the job by a coup.

[*]Are the people who are fighting Assad terrorists?

Not all of them, no. But the people pouring the piss want you to believe so.

[*]Isn't it against US law to support terrorists, even if they are fighting a guy the president doesn't like?

You really want to set this idiotic benchmark?

We are not supporting terrorists by bombing Syria. That is a stupid argument. That is not why we would be bombing Syria. And one could make the argument that terrorists indirectly benefit from everything the US does, which is why this benchmark will one day bite you hard in the ass. In fact, the invasion of Iraq greatly benefited terrrorists. Anyone using the idiotic illogic we see here must say the reason Bush invaded Iraq was to help Al Qaeda.

[*]What provisions exist to make sure that the existing chemical weapons do not end up in the hands of terrorists if we throw Assad out?

We are not throwing Assad out. We are bombing his chemical weapons manufacturing facilities, chemical weapon delivery vehicle manufacuturing facilities, and command, communications, and control military facilities.

There are dozens of questions I have, and they all deserve some sort of answer before we get involved in another war.

Calling this a "war" is drinking the piss, and your biggest error of thinking. We would be shooting less missiles than were fired in the first 60 seconds of the Iraq War.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

I'll tell you what. When you leftists get concensus with your own congressmen and senators, then you can come to us and tell us what you think.

We'll wait...

 

[tinydancer]

[*]What will attacking Syria accomplish?

The destruction of chemical weapons manufacturing facilities. The destruction of chemical weapon delivery vehicle manufacuturing facilities. The destruction of Syrian command, communications, and control military facilities.

And it will send a clear message to any asshole who thinks about using chemical weapons in the future.

[*]What if it doesn't accomplish that goal?

Our missiles don't miss.



Where did you get the idea we are attacking Assad or the entire country?

We are attacking chemical weapons manufacturing facilities, chemical weapon delivery vehicle manufacuturing facilities, and command, communications, and control military facilities.

Assad's regime made the weapons, and used the weapons. It does not matter if Assad gave the order that day. The chemical warfare attack could not have occurred if he had not made or bought the weapons.




Did killing civilians punish Hitler?

See how willfully obtuse that question sounds?




Honduras was a coup. I don't know how you get the idea Zelaya's ouster was legal. He was democratically elected, and then overthrown by a coup.

Assad's presidency was inherited from his father, who got the job by a coup.




Not all of them, no. But the people pouring the piss want you to believe so.



You really want to set this idiotic benchmark?

We are not supporting terrorists by bombing Syria. That is a stupid argument. That is not why we would be bombing Syria. And one could make the argument that terrorists indirectly benefit from everything the US does, which is why this benchmark will one day bite you hard in the ass. In fact, the invasion of Iraq greatly benefited terrrorists. Anyone using the idiotic illogic we see here must say the reason Bush invaded Iraq was to help Al Qaeda.

[*]What provisions exist to make sure that the existing chemical weapons do not end up in the hands of terrorists if we throw Assad out?

We are not throwing Assad out. We are bombing his chemical weapons manufacturing facilities, chemical weapon delivery vehicle manufacuturing facilities, and command, communications, and control military facilities.

There are dozens of questions I have, and they all deserve some sort of answer before we get involved in another war.

Calling this a "war" is drinking the piss, and your biggest error of thinking.

Panetta in testimony said it would take 75,000 boots on the ground to secure the facilities.

So you can just go fuck yourself.

I am tired of your bullshit. You are a liar. And you are a horrible human being because you continue to lie and spread lies.

 

[tinydancer]

Oh and by the way, you have absolutely no right to bomb Syria.

That convention only takes into account a chemical attack on another nation. Not within one's own nation asshole.

So you bomb Syria...................I want your President declared a war criminal for defying UN law.

I want him to wish he'd died as a child and never be able to get outside your borders again.

You have pushed the world's buttons too far.

 

[tinydancer]

[*]What will attacking Syria accomplish?

The destruction of chemical weapons manufacturing facilities. The destruction of chemical weapon delivery vehicle manufacuturing facilities. The destruction of Syrian command, communications, and control military facilities.

And it will send a clear message to any asshole who thinks about using chemical weapons in the future.

[*]What if it doesn't accomplish that goal?

Our missiles don't miss.



Where did you get the idea we are attacking Assad or the entire country?

We are attacking chemical weapons manufacturing facilities, chemical weapon delivery vehicle manufacuturing facilities, and command, communications, and control military facilities.

Assad's regime made the weapons, and used the weapons. It does not matter if Assad gave the order that day. The chemical warfare attack could not have occurred if he had not made or bought the weapons.




Did killing civilians punish Hitler?

See how willfully obtuse that question sounds?




Honduras was a coup. I don't know how you get the idea Zelaya's ouster was legal. He was democratically elected, and then overthrown by a coup.

Assad's presidency was inherited from his father, who got the job by a coup.




Not all of them, no. But the people pouring the piss want you to believe so.



You really want to set this idiotic benchmark?

We are not supporting terrorists by bombing Syria. That is a stupid argument. That is not why we would be bombing Syria. And one could make the argument that terrorists indirectly benefit from everything the US does, which is why this benchmark will one day bite you hard in the ass. In fact, the invasion of Iraq greatly benefited terrrorists. Anyone using the idiotic illogic we see here must say the reason Bush invaded Iraq was to help Al Qaeda.

[*]What provisions exist to make sure that the existing chemical weapons do not end up in the hands of terrorists if we throw Assad out?

We are not throwing Assad out. We are bombing his chemical weapons manufacturing facilities, chemical weapon delivery vehicle manufacuturing facilities, and command, communications, and control military facilities.

There are dozens of questions I have, and they all deserve some sort of answer before we get involved in another war.

Calling this a "war" is drinking the piss, and your biggest error of thinking. We would be shooting less missiles than were fired in the first 60 seconds of the Iraq War.

You are sucking Qatar's dick. You have no right whatsoever to bomb Syria and Syrians.

I don't want to hear about Iraq. You bomb Damascus and all hell is going to break loose.

You really think you are just that? You want to just bomb the shit out of people for your ego?

You are fucked up buddy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The destruction of chemical weapons manufacturing facilities. The destruction of chemical weapon delivery vehicle manufacuturing facilities. The destruction of Syrian command, communications, and control military facilities.

It will not. It is far too dangerous to attack chemical weapons facilities with conventional weapons because the risk of them being released is a lot greater when you try to blow them up than when you leave them alone.

And it will send a clear message to any asshole who thinks about using chemical weapons in the future.

That if you use them we will kill more of your people that you do?

Are you aware that the US is the only signatory of the chemical weapons treaty that has reserved the right to use them if someone else uses them first? And that we have a larger stockpile of chemical weapons than Syria? What right do we have to attack others for doing what we will do?

Our missiles don't miss.

They don't? Does that mean that when Clinton hit the Chinese embassy he did it on purpose?

Where did you get the idea we are attacking Assad or the entire country?

Where did you get the idea we weren't?

We are attacking chemical weapons manufacturing facilities, chemical weapon delivery vehicle manufacuturing facilities, and command, communications, and control military facilities.

That will be the last thing we attack because Obama doesn't want to be responsible for a massive release of toxic gas that kills hundreds of thousands of people. I don't even like the guy, and I am willing to give him that much credit.

Assad's regime made the weapons, and used the weapons. It does not matter if Assad gave the order that day. The chemical warfare attack could not have occurred if he had not made or bought the weapons.

You know the date of manufacture, and the facility, even though no one has been able to analyze the evidence yet? Are you God? Or just pretentious?

Did killing civilians punish Hitler?

We weren't trying to punish Hitler, we were trying to destroy everything he stood for.

See how willfully obtuse that question sounds?

The difference is that Obama said we need to punish Assad, which is why my question was legitimate, and yours was simply godwinning, which is what people expect when you post.

Honduras was a coup. I don't know how you get the idea Zelaya's ouster was legal. He was democratically elected, and then overthrown by a coup.

It was legal because it followed the laws in the country he was in. It was legal because the Supreme Court of Honduras said it was.

Want to explain why, other than Obama said it was illegal, that it was illegal?

Assad's presidency was inherited from his father, who got the job by a coup.

His government was recognized by the United States, and the United Nations, as legitimate.

Not all of them, no. But the people pouring the piss want you to believe so.

If some of them are, which you just admitted, the answer to my question is yes. Considering that the argument from McCain, Kerry, and Obama is that the people fighting him are actually moderates, why am I the one that is being deceived here?

You really want to set this idiotic benchmark?

I am asking questions that need to be answered if someone wants my support of action in Syria.

We are not supporting terrorists by bombing Syria. That is a stupid argument. That is not why we would be bombing Syria. And one could make the argument that terrorists indirectly benefit from everything the US does, which is why this benchmark will one day bite you hard in the ass. In fact, the invasion of Iraq greatly benefited terrrorists. Anyone using the idiotic illogic we see here must say the reason Bush invaded Iraq was to help Al Qaeda.

Let me get this straight, by doing more to degrade Assad's military in 48 hours than the resistance has in 2 years, which is a quote from your side of the debate, we aren't going to help the terrorists that you yourself admit are fighting against Assad.

Did you know that, under US law, saying nice things about groups that might give money to terrorists is aiding and abetting terrorists? since that is the standard established by the government, how is it not helping terrorists to bomb people they are fighting?

We are not throwing Assad out. We are bombing his chemical weapons manufacturing facilities, chemical weapon delivery vehicle manufacuturing facilities, and command, communications, and control military facilities.

Why do you keep repeating a lie?

Calling this a "war" is drinking the piss, and your biggest error of thinking. We would be shooting less missiles than were fired in the first 60 seconds of the Iraq War.

It is a war. Pretending it isn't makes you a piss drinker, not me.

 

[sealybobo]

There are a few threads popping up that accuse people like me of being hypocrites for not supporting an attack on Syria. I wanted to take the time to lay out my position, and explain why I am not the hypocrite.

I was young once. I remember cheering when US Navy pilots shot down two Libyan fighters that opened fire on them. I was proud of them, and even felt a degree of kinship because I was in the Navy at the time, and wanted to share some of that glory. I grew up since then, and learned that war is not a video game.

After 9/11 I fully supported the decision to go into Afghanistan. Believe it or not, I still do, even though we did a lot of things wrong. There really wasn't enough planning about what we would do when we got there, and how we would leave. There really wasn't time to think of all the things we needed to consider before we went in, but that doesn't mean no one shouldn't have asked the questions.

I also supported the invasion of Iraq. I, like Hillary, believe it was the thing to do given what we knew at the time. I really hate to say it, but she called that one right. The thing is, we really shouldn't have gone in, and we stayed way too long, but I did support it at the time. As a side note, the only reason we left was that Bush was smart enough to obligate the US to do so before he left office. That is the one thing he got right from the mess that he made there, and I refuse to give Obama credit for it.

Now we come to Syria. I am older and, I hope, wiser than I was when I supported the invasion of Iraq. I am definitely wiser than I was when I proudly wore t-shirt emblazoned with the words "US Navy 2, Libya 0."

We shouldn't go to war simply because the president tells us it is a good idea. The writers of the Constitution knew this, which is why they left the decision to wage offensive war entirely in the hands of Congress. It is never a good idea to let one man, no matter how good we think he is, send 300 million people to war. (Yes, I know about the WPR, I am talking about the Constitution and the intent of the framers, not what Congress did in 1973.)

We need to ask questions, and get solid answers, before we attack another country. So far, no one is giving anyone the answers we need.

• What will attacking Syria accomplish?
• What if it doesn't accomplish that goal?
• Is there evidence that Assad didn't approve of the use of chemical weapons?
• If he didn't, why are we attacking him?
• If he did, why are we attacking the entire country?
• Will killing more civilians really punish Assad?
• Given the fact that Obama opposed the legal ouster of the president of Honduras, why does he support the illegal ouster of the president of Syria?
• Are the people who are fighting Assad terrorists?
• Isn't it against US law to support terrorists, even if they are fighting a guy the president doesn't like?
• What provisions exist to make sure that the existing chemical weapons do not end up in the hands of terrorists if we throw Assad out?

There are dozens of questions I have, and they all deserve some sort of answer before we get involved in another war. I am way to old to get gung ho about a war simply because the guy that wants to start it won a Nobel.

Ask trump these questions. He’s considering doing what obama did

 

[sealybobo]

I like the second to last bullet: It is against US law to aid and abet our enemies, in fact, according to the Constitution, Article III, Section 3, it is Treason, and is punihsable by death.

I would cut off my left nut to see Mccain and Obama publicly hang for treason.

Get ready to hang trump next

 

[sealybobo]

I'll tell you what. When you leftists get concensus with your own congressmen and senators, then you can come to us and tell us what you think.

We'll wait...

How about now. Is it ok now?

 

[sealybobo]

What if the cease fire violation was not a threat to our national security?

What if a companies violation of a negotiated contract does not endanger the public? Should we just ignore them?

We've managed to ignore North Korean ceasefire violations since the '50's. Why didn't Bush invade North Korea?

Is this all you have? You can't manage the topic of discussion so all you have are anecdotes?

Trump fucked up. He announced pulling out of Syria and that’s why the chemical attacks. Big mouth.

Now he’s going to continue Obama’s illegal war.

Or maybe congress will go along with trump.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There are a few threads popping up that accuse people like me of being hypocrites for not supporting an attack on Syria. I wanted to take the time to lay out my position, and explain why I am not the hypocrite.

I was young once. I remember cheering when US Navy pilots shot down two Libyan fighters that opened fire on them. I was proud of them, and even felt a degree of kinship because I was in the Navy at the time, and wanted to share some of that glory. I grew up since then, and learned that war is not a video game.

After 9/11 I fully supported the decision to go into Afghanistan. Believe it or not, I still do, even though we did a lot of things wrong. There really wasn't enough planning about what we would do when we got there, and how we would leave. There really wasn't time to think of all the things we needed to consider before we went in, but that doesn't mean no one shouldn't have asked the questions.

I also supported the invasion of Iraq. I, like Hillary, believe it was the thing to do given what we knew at the time. I really hate to say it, but she called that one right. The thing is, we really shouldn't have gone in, and we stayed way too long, but I did support it at the time. As a side note, the only reason we left was that Bush was smart enough to obligate the US to do so before he left office. That is the one thing he got right from the mess that he made there, and I refuse to give Obama credit for it.

Now we come to Syria. I am older and, I hope, wiser than I was when I supported the invasion of Iraq. I am definitely wiser than I was when I proudly wore t-shirt emblazoned with the words "US Navy 2, Libya 0."

We shouldn't go to war simply because the president tells us it is a good idea. The writers of the Constitution knew this, which is why they left the decision to wage offensive war entirely in the hands of Congress. It is never a good idea to let one man, no matter how good we think he is, send 300 million people to war. (Yes, I know about the WPR, I am talking about the Constitution and the intent of the framers, not what Congress did in 1973.)

We need to ask questions, and get solid answers, before we attack another country. So far, no one is giving anyone the answers we need.

• What will attacking Syria accomplish?
• What if it doesn't accomplish that goal?
• Is there evidence that Assad didn't approve of the use of chemical weapons?
• If he didn't, why are we attacking him?
• If he did, why are we attacking the entire country?
• Will killing more civilians really punish Assad?
• Given the fact that Obama opposed the legal ouster of the president of Honduras, why does he support the illegal ouster of the president of Syria?
• Are the people who are fighting Assad terrorists?
• Isn't it against US law to support terrorists, even if they are fighting a guy the president doesn't like?
• What provisions exist to make sure that the existing chemical weapons do not end up in the hands of terrorists if we throw Assad out?

There are dozens of questions I have, and they all deserve some sort of answer before we get involved in another war. I am way to old to get gung ho about a war simply because the guy that wants to start it won a Nobel.

The issue often comes down to how much people want it, and how much they get the media to tell everyone why they want it.

Why hasn't there been much pressure on Syria but enough for it to be an issue?

US interests aren't directly at stake here. Syria doesn't have much oil and isn't OPEC, which is the most important thing.

So the US would rather it went away, preferably without Assad and with a pro-US govt in charge.

However it's next to Iraq, which causes problems. But Syria and Iraq have always wanted, but never achieved a pan-Arab nation. So, the US is like, well.... if Syria were free we wouldn't want it to go into nationalism and join with Iraq.

So the media doesn't fire a blitz at the readers like they've done with North Korea and Iran, or with Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan.