Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to Le Figaro. Following is the full text:
Le Figaro: Mr. President, the Americans and the French have accused you of perpetrating a chemical attack on the 21st of August in Ghouta, which led to the death of hundreds. Do you have evidence to suggest that your army did not launch the attack?
President al-Assad: First of all, anyone making such an accusation is also responsible for providing the evidence to substantiate the allegation. We have challenged them to present a shred of legitimate evidence, which they have not been able to do. Since their foreign policy should be tailored to suit the interests of their own people, we have challenged them to present legitimate evidence to their own public opinion to substantiate their claims; again they have not done so.
(Excerpt)
Assad's warning to France
It's a conservative paper, it can't be trusted. :mrgreen:
So reveal our intelligence sources, or forget about it?
Assad, I'm not so sure you appreciate how thin the ice is your standing on. Ego's are about to be unleashed...
Falling for the propaganda, tsk tsk.
Falling for the propaganda, tsk tsk.
Say Next, sense there's no constitutional authority for us to attack a country that hasn't attacked us, sense the WPA can't support it, sense it is in violation of international law, risks expanding hostilities to the entire region and possibly beyond, why in the hell should it even be debated?
Does it follow international law to use chemical weapons on a a civilian populace? At this point I don't think it is any question that chemical weapons were used, they were. The question is who? So if that question cannot be answered, the U.N. should demand the chemical weapons be turned over for destruction.
I don't want the U.S. to embark on this, I am wanting the U.N. to get involved and then with them and others do something about it. The U.S. should not be doing this and if the U.N. does not want to get involved then that decision will also be on their shoulders and we shouldn't do anything either.
Falling for the propaganda, tsk tsk.
Does it follow international law to use chemical weapons on a a civilian populace? At this point I don't think it is any question that chemical weapons were used, they were. The question is who? So if that question cannot be answered, the U.N. should demand the chemical weapons be turned over for destruction.
I don't want the U.S. to embark on this, I am wanting the U.N. to get involved and then with them and others do something about it. The U.S. should not be doing this and if the U.N. does not want to get involved then that decision will also be on their shoulders and we shouldn't do anything either.
Ocean brings up a good point, if providing the evidence puts a source at risk, should we provide that evidence? A lot of our intellgience comes from people on the inside providing the evidence. Certainly you realize that care needs to also be made as to not put sources at risk or show our hand on how we got the evidence.
I'm not saying things should be done blindly only carefully.
President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to Le Figaro. Following is the full text:
Le Figaro: Mr. President, the Americans and the French have accused you of perpetrating a chemical attack on the 21st of August in Ghouta, which led to the death of hundreds. Do you have evidence to suggest that your army did not launch the attack?
President al-Assad: First of all, anyone making such an accusation is also responsible for providing the evidence to substantiate the allegation. We have challenged them to present a shred of legitimate evidence, which they have not been able to do. Since their foreign policy should be tailored to suit the interests of their own people, we have challenged them to present legitimate evidence to their own public opinion to substantiate their claims; again they have not done so.
(Excerpt)
Assad's warning to France
There's a bad moon rising, boys and girls...
I remember the Last Time.
There's a bad moon rising, boys and girls...
I remember the Last Time.
the U.N. should demand the chemical weapons be turned over for destruction.
Wasn't that the last time us and the French alone agreed upon a military action?
The French were in VN from 54 thru about 60. The north and south split somewhere in the mid to upper 50s. Eisenhower made a promise to the south for support if needed. Bad call.
Then not long after that the Australians sent in some advisors and wind up sending several thousand troops.
Kennedy sent in military "advisors" before he died. Johnson used the Gulf of Tonkin, which was a fabricated bunch of BS, to send in troops. He knew he ****ed up really bad...and didn't seek a second full term.
Before we knew what the hell was going on..the draft started going like wildfire and upteen thousands were forced to go to VN.
If I remember correctly...eventually about 500,000 Americans had been on VN soil before Ford finally was forced to end military presence...in about 75ish, give or take a year or so.
So the answer to your question...no the US and the French didn't ally together going into VN.
Actually they were there from the ousting of the Japanese at the end of WWII until 1954. The country split in 1954 after the ousting of the French. The first advisors were sent in 1950, which is when it was still claimed by the French.
Troop levels fell from 1969 to almost half the number being there in 1970.
A Peace accord was reached under Nixon in 1973 which the NV's broke once American troop levels had fallen, Nixon was disgraced and Ford didn't have the political clout or will to re-engage.
Saigon fell in 1975.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?