1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov claim

[Higgins86]

U.N. inspectors start leaving Syria; Obama meets with security team - CNN.com



US seems to have lots of evidence pointing to the Syrian Government. UN inspectors should be getting back with their findings soon.

 

[Gipper]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

People scoffed when Bush said Iraq was bypassing UN inspectors by moving WMDs to Syria...

 

[Erod]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

Gee, we found mass graves of several thousands of dead Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein, and that was unjustified. Now we have the same scenario, and Kerry and Pelosi want to act?

While we diddled with the UN for months on end about Iraq, did Saddam not have plenty of time to move his weapons into Syria?

 

[Higgins86]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

People scoffed when Bush said Iraq was bypassing UN inspectors by moving WMDs to Syria...

True enough! Saddam had them thats for sure and they had to end up somewhere.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

UN inspectors should be getting back with their findings soon.

I have complete confidence they will report that they have found their heads up their asses!

 

[Fisher]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

There is no way we will be effective as to the outcome of this by blowing up a few airports. We need to stay the hell out. Kudos to Parliament for keeping the UK out of Obama's Folly.

 

[donsutherland1]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

People scoffed when Bush said Iraq was bypassing UN inspectors by moving WMDs to Syria...

Syria has long had chemical weapons. Its possession predated the Iraq war.

 

[Gipper]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

Syria has long had chemical weapons. Its possession predated the Iraq war.

Then why weren't we invading Damascus in the 90s?

And don't use the word "oil".

 

[Painter]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

Gee, we found mass graves of several thousands of dead Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein, and that was unjustified. Now we have the same scenario, and Kerry and Pelosi want to act?

While we diddled with the UN for months on end about Iraq, did Saddam not have plenty of time to move his weapons into Syria?

Don't get me wrong, I am against Kerry and Pelosi on this.
However, some of those mass graves were from the Reagan era when we supported the making of them.
And most were from the Bush Sr. era and a result of our abandoning the Iraqi's we encouraged to "rise up".
It was ridiculous for Bush jr. to use them as an excuse. There is no hypocrisy in Kerry's position. Kerry, although wrong, is basing his decisions from current and relevant events.

Syria has the 3rd largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world.
The first, if you actually believe that the U.S. does not have the largest.
Saddam would have used his chemical weapons like crazy if he had them. Especially after the first few days once he knew we were not bluffing.
Much more evidence showed the programs were abandoned, than anything indicating it was moved to Syria.
Syria needed more chemical weapons like I need more house cats.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

My issue with this is simple.

The rebels want the west to get involved.

The only way that is going to happen is if Assad uses chemical weapons.

Assad does not want the west to get involved.

The only way that is going to happen is if he uses Chemical Weapons.

Who has more to gain from their use here?

That question should lead us to be extremely cautious.

While I hate Assads guts and hope he gets Gaddafi'd... I also don't want to support terrorists and it seems that's exactly what a fair number of these Rebels in Syria are.

 

[head of joaquin]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

Then why weren't we invading Damascus in the 90s?

And don't use the word "oil".

Because Clinton was president in the 1990s and wasn't an idiotic boob like Bush.

 

[donsutherland1]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

Then why weren't we invading Damascus in the 90s?

And don't use the word "oil".

Syria posed no imminent threat to critical American interests and allies.

 

[head of joaquin]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

My issue with this is simple.

The rebels want the west to get involved.

The only way that is going to happen is if Assad uses chemical weapons.

Assad does not want the west to get involved.

The only way that is going to happen is if he uses Chemical Weapons.

Who has more to gain from their use here?

That question should lead us to be extremely cautious.

While I hate Assads guts and hope he gets Gaddafi'd... I also don't want to support terrorists and it seems that's exactly what a fair number of these Rebels in Syria are.

I agree.

Assuming Assad used the biological weapons (it's hard to believe he'd be so stupid as to provoke Europe and the US that way for the dubious benefits of such weapons but if he did), then we may have to respond just to assert our current strict disapproval of such weapons, since they are hard to control. Some kind of air strike might suffice, or a no fly zone.

The real problem is that both sides appear to be unpalatable from a western perspective. The opposition has a large jihadist element, and I wouldn't put it past them to use biological weapons against themselves (or civilians associated with other militias) just to blame Assad.

Ultimately, sometimes it's best for a nation to have its own civil war (as we did) when irreconcilable disputes exist, in order for a sense of finality and unity to arise after the fighting is over. Iraq shows what happens when outside forces simply decapitate the bad guy leadership, and the bad guy opposition are left to fight it out with the good guy opposition (such as they were) because there was no common cause in ending Saddam's reign. If the jihadists and "democratic" elements have to fight together to remove Assad, they are more likely to reach some kind of accommodation afterwards. If we just take out Assad, it's Iraq all over again. I hate to see children and other civilians die in the civil war that now exists, but the alternative may be worse.

Though 1500 people killed with chemical weapons. That's scary.

 

[Gipper]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

Because Clinton was president in the 1990s and wasn't an idiotic boob like Bush.

Yeah, I'd expect that kind of answer from you.

Syria posed no imminent threat to critical American interests and allies.

And they are now? I'm really tired of America being the world's police.

 

[head of joaquin]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

People scoffed when Bush said Iraq was bypassing UN inspectors by moving WMDs to Syria...

Jesus man, drop the defense of the boob, Bush. There were no WMD in Iraq, except those Reagan arranged to get to Saddam, and Saddam used those to massacre the Kurds. Syria has had the ability to make chemical weapons for years (it's not that hard), and Syria wasn't under sanctions like Iraq.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

and I wouldn't put it past them to use biological weapons against themselves (or civilians associated with other militias) just to blame Assad.

Well it's the embodiment of the phrase

"The Ends Justify The Means"

If you believe killing a neighbourhood of people with chemical weapons will ensure final victory for your side... there are those who see it as justifiable.

In that case... its not unreasonable to speculate that a chemical weapons shell may have been stolen and fired from a rebel position.

 

[head of joaquin]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

Yeah, I'd expect that kind of answer from you..

Yeah, the historically accurate response. I expect you to give the other kind. Meanwhile the claim that Syria got its chemical weapons from Saddam (i.e., Reagan) is simply false. So I expect you to repeat it ad nauseam.

 

[Painter]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

Syria posed no imminent threat to critical American interests and allies.

Do they now?

 

[head of joaquin]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

Well it's the embodiment of the phrase

"The Ends Justify The Means"

If you believe killing a neighbourhood of people with chemical weapons will ensure final victory for your side... there are those who see it as justifiable.

In that case... its not unreasonable to speculate that a chemical weapons shell may have been stolen and fired from a rebel position.

Yep. I agree. If we are going to take action against Assad for deployment of chemical weapons, we better be very sure that actually happened, given the fact that it's hard to believe he had any reason to use them (he's winning the civil war - more or less - with conventional weapons) and given the fact that only the opposition would seem to benefit from it in terms of international support.

 

[Higgins86]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

There is no way we will be effective as to the outcome of this by blowing up a few airports. We need to stay the hell out. Kudos to Parliament for keeping the UK out of Obama's Folly.

Yes how noble of Parliament! I'm sure it had nothign to do with keeping their noses clean with elections coming soon.

 

[Montecresto]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

Then why weren't we invading Damascus in the 90s?

And don't use the word "oil".

Because then as now, he never threatened the US, rules you know.

 

[ItAin'tFree]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

It was ridiculous for Bush jr. to use them as an excuse. There is no hypocrisy in Kerry's position. Kerry, although wrong, is basing his decisions from current and relevant events.

LOL.

The authorization for the Iraq War was debated on in Congress, written in Congress and voted on in Congress. Then sent to the President.
Kerry, he voted yes on it. Before he turn coated our troops. What he is doing now makes him a total hypocrite, yet again.

Should there be a statute of limitations for genocide? If so why?

 

[donsutherland1]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

And they are now?

IMO, they do not. Although the President cited a "threat" to Jordan and Israel, I disagree. Syria knows that if it attacked Israel conventionally or otherwise, Israel could drive the Assad government from power on its own. It also knows that if it attacked Jordan, the U.S. would defend its strategic ally with exactly the same outcome. Assad is trying desperately to survive and has his hands full with an ongoing sectarian conflict. He is not going to launch what could only amount to suicidal endeavors. As a result, Syria poses no imminent threat to Jordan or Israel. Also considering a lack of critical U.S. interests in the outcome of the Syrian civil war, I don't support U.S. military action in Syria. That's my opinion.

 

[DiAnna]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

Governments all over are condemning the chemical weapons attacks and saying something should be done. Only none of them want to do it. They want the USA, as usual, to take care of business so they can then point the finger back at us and chortle, "Aha!! The US aggressors are attacking again!"

We should not do this. If it's not important enough to the rest of the world to do it themselves, then it isn't important enough for us to do it for them. The world has had years to come together to stop this... 100,000 dead was not important enough, so I can't believe that an extra 1,500 deaths will move cowardly politicians to do so now, simply because those 1,500 people were killed by gas instead of bombs and bullets.

Obama has backed himself into a corner with rhetoric. If he doesn't strike Syria, then gas attacks will become even more substantial, and the USA will become a laughing stock. If he does strike Syria, then everything that results from that, from the initial casualties to retaliation attacks, will be our fault. In other words, no matter what happens, we are royally screwed.

 

[donsutherland1]

Re: 1,429 people were killed by a chemical attack carried out by Syrian Gov- US gov c

Do they now?

IMO, no. I've articulated this position consistently in suggesting that I did not support U.S. military intervention (direct or indirect) in Syria's civil war.