CNN.com No Red Line

[Moot]

The threat can sometimes be almost as influential as an actual missle strike. The jiihadists and Assad's military have been feverishly scrambling since lasts weeks announcement of possible US missle strikes.

••The "threat" is what is causing all this emotional reaction. Now, we're arguing who made what threat and when and what the threat really is.

I was talking about the reaction on the ground in Syria, not the US.

What's the hurry?
••Well, according to you, we have all this scrambling going on. So, do you suppose that the scrambling could be the hiding of these "chemical weapons"? If they exist, and I have my doubts, then why announce your intentions and then allow endless time for preparation by the "bad guys"?

No, I didnt say "we". I specifically said the "jiihadists and Assad's military." Really, you doubt the chemical weapons exist? What would it take to convince you they do....a thousand more deaths, a million, what?

When the world can see the war ships off shore and the export of missles to Turkey and Israel kinda ruins the element of surprise. Bush waited six months after he got congressional approval to invade Iraq. Do you think Iraq was surprised when US troops rolled into Baghdad?

My posts are not anti-Obama. They are anti-involvement in a war that is none of our business using the exact same excuses as the last President who gave us a decade of warfare in Iraq and surely didn't make us any friends.

As members of the global community and having signed several chemical and biological weapons treaties suggests that any violation or turning of a blind eye does effect the US as it does all nations on this small planet of ours. If Syria thinks it can use WMDs with impunity then what is to stop Iran, N. Korea or some other despotic nation from using them?

 

[specklebang]

I was talking about the reaction on the ground in Syria, not the US.

No, I didnt say "we". I specifically said the "jiihadists and Assad's military." Really, you doubt the chemical weapons exist? What would it take to convince you they do....a thousand more deaths, a million, what?

When the world can see the war ships off shore and the export of missles to Turkey and Israel kinda ruins the element of surprise. Bush waited six months after he got congressional approval to invade Iraq. Do you think Iraq was surprised when US troops rolled into Baghdad?


As members of the global community and having signed several chemical and biological weapons treaties suggests that any violation or turning of a blind eye does effect the US as it does all nations on this small planet of ours. If Syria thinks it can use WMDs with impunity then what is to stop Iran, N. Korea or some other despotic nation from using them?

No, I guess that Iraq was not surprised and apparently they did a great job of hiding those WMDs that we haven't found yet.

Earlier in this thread I posed the question of WHY chemical weapons were used. Seems to be a greater benefit to the Jihad-fellas than to the Assad loyalists. So, who exactly are we planning to attack?

Iran and NK are violating nuclear arms strictures. How many millions of deaths will it take you to see that as a far greater problem than this purported use of Sarin gas? Shouldn't we attack those 2 first?

 

[apdst]

So what would you like to see happen? What would make this OK?

If CNN goes after him and chastises him (your term) how will life be improved for anyone? Wouldn't we be better off to let him get out of any commitment and have a reason to not do this foolish invasion? Do you think this going to war is wise?

It's a real question.

So, you want everyone to give Obama a free pass for being an idiot?

 

[specklebang]

So, you want everyone to give Obama a free pass for being an idiot?

What is a "free pass"? Let me put it this way, I see 2 choices here:

1) Give Obama a "free pass" and mind our own business or

2) back Obama against the wall and have him take us to war so he can "be a man of his word".

Let me think about this for a while and I'll try to pick the more useful alternative.

 

[apdst]

No, I guess that Iraq was not surprised and apparently they did a great job of hiding those WMDs that we haven't found yet.

Earlier in this thread I posed the question of WHY chemical weapons were used. Seems to be a greater benefit to the Jihad-fellas than to the Assad loyalists. So, who exactly are we planning to attack?

Iran and NK are violating nuclear arms strictures. How many millions of deaths will it take you to see that as a far greater problem than this purported use of Sarin gas? Shouldn't we attack those 2 first?

We don't know what tactical purpose the attack served. Assad employed chemical agents a few months ago to block the advance of a rebel force and refirect them into an ambush. That may have been the objective here; we don't know.

The idea that Assad would refrain from using chemical weapons becsuse he's winning is silly. Thay would be like halting the use of air strikes, because you're winning.

Why is it that people latch onto a silly talking point and run it in the ground?

 

[specklebang]

We don't know what tactical purpose the attack served. Assad employed chemical agents a few months ago to block the advance of a rebel force and refirect them into an ambush. That may have been the objective here; we don't know.

The idea that Assad would refrain from using chemical weapons becsuse he's winning is silly. Thay would be like halting the use of air strikes, because you're winning.

Why is it that people latch onto a silly talking point and run it in the ground?

Interesting. This was reported as an attack that killed 1400 non-combatants, women and children. So, that made Assad an evil monster. Now, this was brilliant military strategy.

Why is it that people latch onto a silly talking point and run it in the ground?

 

[apdst]

What is a "free pass"? Let me put it this way, I see 2 choices here:

1) Give Obama a "free pass" and mind our own business or

2) back Obama against the wall and have him take us to war so he can "be a man of his word".

Let me think about this for a while and I'll try to pick the more useful alternative.

Or, the 3rd choice: give Obama a free pass, do nothing and encourage the enemy to do something even more barbaric because we've made it very clear that we're not going to do a damn yhing about it.

Assad has no reason to worry about Obama, because this os the third time he's use CW's and Obama STILL hasn't done anything.

We're telling the islamofacists that they are free and clear to attack Israel.

 

[apdst]

Interesting. This was reported as an attack that killed 1400 non-combatants, women and children. So, that made Assad an evil monster. Now, this was brilliant military strategy.

Why is it that people latch onto a silly talking point and run it in the ground?

We don't know if we're seeing the whole picture or not. How do we know that all those shroud wrapped bodies were civilians and not rebs? Don't they all look alike?

 

[specklebang]

Or, the 3rd choice: give Obama a free pass, do nothing and encourage the enemy to do something even more barbaric because we've made it very clear that we're not going to do a damn yhing about it.

Assad has no reason to worry about Obama, because this os the third time he's use CW's and Obama STILL hasn't done anything.

We're telling the islamofacists that they are free and clear to attack Israel.

We don't know if we're seeing the whole picture or not. How do we know that all those shroud wrapped bodies were civilians and not rebs? Don't they all look alike?

Yeah, dead people do kind of look alike.

So, am I correct in assuming you support our attacking Syria? I'm not criticizing you in any way, just curious. I'm very uncomfortable with it myself. I feel like we've armed all these neighboring countries very well. Why is it us that has to do the dirty work?

I'll also go out on a limb and say that the best thing that could happen for us would be for anyone to drop some chemicals on Israel. I think they would come to regret it very quickly thereafter.

 

[Moot]

No, I guess that Iraq was not surprised and apparently they did a great job of hiding those WMDs that we haven't found yet.

Are you still hoping or still pretending they'll find WMDs?

Earlier in this thread I posed the question of WHY chemical weapons were used. Seems to be a greater benefit to the Jihad-fellas than to the Assad loyalists. So, who exactly are we planning to attack?

Assad's military sites....and who knows, maybe even Al Qaeda.

Iran and NK are violating nuclear arms strictures. How many millions of deaths will it take you to see that as a far greater problem than this purported use of Sarin gas? Shouldn't we attack those 2 first?

Don't you think Iran will be emboldened to use chemical weapons or even a nuclear bomb if we don't show we are serious about preventing their use? Really and why wouldn't they?

 

[specklebang]

Are you still hoping or still pretending they'll find WMDs?

Assad's military sites....and who knows, maybe even Al Qaeda.

Don't you think Iran will be emboldened to use chemical weapons or even a nuclear bomb if we don't show we are serious about preventing their use? Really and why wouldn't they?

No, you've missed the sarcasm apparently. There were no WMDs but we went to war using that excuse. Now, we're doing EXACTLY the same thing.

So, we'll attack Assad and the Al Qaeda? ****, we can just shoot anything that moves and win a free teddy bear.

Iran seems plenty emboldened right now but I don't hear a mumbling word about it. And look at Israel, with the worlds largest supply of unacknowledged nuclear weapons. Shall we bomb them as we fly toward Syria?

 

[apdst]

Yeah, dead people do kind of look alike.

So, am I correct in assuming you support our attacking Syria? I'm not criticizing you in any way, just curious. I'm very uncomfortable with it myself. I feel like we've armed all these neighboring countries very well. Why is it us that has to do the dirty work?

I'll also go out on a limb and say that the best thing that could happen for us would be for anyone to drop some chemicals on Israel. I think they would come to regret it very quickly thereafter.

At this point I support it. If we don't maje good on the threat, the bad guys are going to believe they can do as they please.

Why do folks think that backibg down--now--will have posituve concequences?

 

[specklebang]

At this point I support it. If we don't maje good on the threat, the bad guys are going to believe they can do as they please.

Why do folks think that backibg down--now--will have posituve concequences?

Nobody would think there would be positive consequences whether we back down or not. Either way, we lose. But one path is loss of face and one path is loss of life. Plus, I think we'll make fewer enemies. We already have a lifetime supply of terrorists. Who needs more?

 

[apdst]

Nobody would think there would be positive consequences whether we back down or not. Either way, we lose. But one path is loss of face and one path is loss of life. Plus, I think we'll make fewer enemies. We already have a lifetime supply of terrorists. Who needs more?

We didn't retaliate against AQ in the 90's. How did that work out?

3,000 Americans died, because we didn't want to make more enemies.

The people that hate us are going to hate us, anyway. They're to see inaction as a sign of weakness and exploit it, just like they've done numerous times in the past: The Soviet-Afghan War, The Iran Hostage Crisis.

 

[specklebang]

We didn't retaliate against AQ in the 90's. How did that work out?

3,000 Americans died, because we didn't want to make more enemies.

The people that hate us are going to hate us, anyway. They're to see inaction as a sign of weakness and exploit it, just like they've done numerous times in the past: The Soviet-Afghan War, The Iran Hostage Crisis.

So, if we had attacked ?who? in the 1990s, everything would be OK? Could we have "wiped out" AQ?

 

[apdst]

So, if we had attacked ?who? in the 1990s, everything would be OK? Could we have "wiped out" AQ?

Blowing up an asprin plant sure as hell didn't intimidate anyone.

 

[specklebang]

Blowing up an asprin plant sure as hell didn't intimidate anyone.

??asprin plant??. I must have missed that one. What a headache.

But seriously, which country should they have gone after in that era? Most of the hijackers were Saudis like OBL. Should we have attacked Saudi Arabia?

 

[apdst]

??asprin plant??. I must have missed that one. What a headache.

But seriously, which country should they have gone after in that era? Most of the hijackers were Saudis like OBL. Should we have attacked Saudi Arabia?

You really don't know what I'm talking about?

 

[Lord of Planar]

It's 9:30 PM PST and less than 12 hours ago the president said the red line he called out a year ago was the worlds, not his, it was congresses not his, and even though his second sentence a year ago claimed crossing such a line effected ME ( meaning him) it was now everyone else's (the worlds) red line not his. It sickens me journalism is so dead he isn't properly chastised for this deceit and so many others. It really is clear, the bias in the media, when CNN.com can't even present a link to the story on their home page some 12 hrs later.

Anything for their dictator.

I've called CNN, the Communist News Network for years. They seldom report anything that harm the demonrats.

 

[specklebang]

You really don't know what I'm talking about?

I'm an old man and pretty soon I'll need dog-tags so I can remember my name. So :3oops: no, what aspirin plant?

 

[apdst]

I'm an old man and pretty soon I'll need dog-tags so I can remember my name. So :3oops: no, what aspirin plant?

The aspirin plant that Clinton lit up with a tomohawk, in retaliation for the embassy bombings in Africa.

 

[specklebang]

The aspirin plant that Clinton lit up with a tomohawk, in retaliation for the embassy bombings in Africa.

Ah, got it. Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Thanks. Not aspirin apparently but pharmaceuticals.