• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

who killed these babies ?

-------------
Is that right?
Since poison gas is easily manufactured, how would anyone know it originated in Iraq?
I'm really not trying to be difficult here, but poison gas can be made by anyone.

You're not being difficult. You're voicing your opinion and debating in a respectful manner, so I have no problem.

I didn't mean to insinuate that the gas being used now is the same gas from Saddam's regime. And you're correct. All you need is a little Freon and a flame to pass it through and you can have some Phosgene gas. Pretty simple.
 
I disagree. We've done exactly that time and again and it's only gotten us into trouble. If there is a "vettable good guy" then the people will support him and he will eventually succeed on his own. If not, then maybe the next "good guy" who tries will. The best way to deal with any situation involving internal strife is to let the citizen's settle it on their own. IMO eventually they'll get it right, even if the government isn't one we'd approve of.

Meanwhile we would not have made any enemies like we have from past interference.

Doing it in 1941 didn't get us in trouble. In fact, waiting until 1941 cost far more American lives.

There were vettable good guys in Iraq after Desert Storm. Did we support them? No. The Result? The invasion of Iraq in 2003.

There were vettable good guys in Iran a few years ago. Did we support them? No. The result? That remains to be seen, as Iran's nuclear capabilities grow everyday.

There were vettable good guys in Rwanda. Did we act? No. The result? Nearly a million innocent people were murdered.

The notion that we should turn a blind eye to EVERY crisis is naïve, at best.
 
Do you remember the Yellow Cake that was found in an abandoned building in the desert by a CNN crew?

I would like a citation proving that Saddam moved chems through Syria. While you're not obligated to provide such, I would find it useful in future debates.
 
-----------

Why would he bother?
The invasion was going to happen and exporting his WMD's wouldn't have saved his sorry ass.

US forces finding the weapons sure as hell wouldn't help his cause, on the international scene.
 
Does it not bother anyone else that the OP source is the Castro regime?
 
I would like a citation proving that Saddam moved chems through Syria. While you're not obligated to provide such, I would find it useful in future debates.

Former Iraqi general Georges Sada claimed that in late 2002, Saddam had ordered all of his stockpiles to be moved to Syria. He appeared on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes in January 2006 to discuss his book, Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein. Anticipating the arrival of weapon inspectors on November 1, Sada said Saddam took advantage of the June 4 Zeyzoun Dam disaster in Syria by forming an "air bridge", loading them onto cargo aircraft and flying them out of the country.


They were moved by air and by ground, 56 sorties by jumbo, 747, and 27 were moved, after they were converted to cargo aircraft, they were moved to Syria

WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Primary source material is Purdy much untouchable.
 
Primary source material is Purdy much untouchable.

Interesting. I'd like to see what other members have to say about this evidence.
 
Does it not bother anyone else that the OP source is the Castro regime?
--------------

Well...yes....a little.
However, I'm sure there are equally dubious sources affirming that Assad did it, not the "opposers".
 
--------------

Well...yes....a little.
However, I'm sure there are equally dubious sources affirming that Assad did it, not the "opposers".

What about not so dubious sources?
 
I've been suggesting this possibility for years, but since there's no way to prove it it's usually dismissed and laughed at. One possible benefit of the Syrian civil war is that we may get an answer in the future unless, of course, they get moved to Lebanon.

There's been tons of verification that Hussein moved his NBC weapons to Syria; both from eyewitnesses and Israeli intelligence services.
 
-----------------
Why would Syria bother to import Iraq's crap?
Poison gas is pretty simple to manufacture.

Actually poison gas is rather difficult to manufacture, store, and then deploy in such a way as to actually produce the effects that we are seeing on the ground. That, for example, is why we have seen so few incidents of terror groups using it in their attacks. Same-Same with the bio-weapons-in-a-basement theory. The meme that this stuff can be easily manufactured by someone with the will and a copy of the anarchist cookbook is.... not reflected in reality.
 
What about not so dubious sources?

-------------
I gotta be honest, eco.
I hear so much dreck from both sides of the fence, that, at this point, I don't know what to believe.
As Medusa opined in her OP, if Assad is winning, why would he do this?
 
Interesting. I'd like to see what other members have to say about this evidence.

Seeing how the war has been propagandized to death, I doubt there are many here that are ridicule-proof enough to go along with this unquestionable evidence.

Nevermind that Syria has never had the facilities to produce chemical weapons; Iraq and Syria were the closest of allies; that there are several former Iraqi army officers who have all told the same story; Israeli intelligence has also stated that the chemical weapons were moved to Syria.

How you get that many people to tell the same lie is beyond me. Maybe it's a conspiracy between Arabs and Israelis, or something?
 
As Medusa opined in her OP, if Assad is winning, why would he do this?

Perhaps he could not afford to lose the units he had committed to the skirmish.
 
-------------
I gotta be honest, eco.
I hear so much dreck from both sides of the fence, that, at this point, I don't know what to believe.
As Medusa opined in her OP, if Assad is winning, why would he do this?

1) To make sure he keeps winning.

2) To win even quicker. The sooner the war ends, the better off the winner will be.

3) We were winning against the Japanese during WW2, but we still nuked their asses.
 
Actually poison gas is rather difficult to manufacture, store, and then deploy in such a way as to actually produce the effects that we are seeing on the ground. That, for example, is why we have seen so few incidents of terror groups using it in their attacks. Same-Same with the bio-weapons-in-a-basement theory. The meme that this stuff can be easily manufactured by someone with the will and a copy of the anarchist cookbook is.... not reflected in reality.
-----------------

Probably true.
I would counter with the fact that poison gas WMDs have been around for over a century.
Any reasonably advanced country can build and disperse this product.
While the effectiveness and control of the gas is problematic on a battlefield, I think gassing a civilian populace would be easy....too easy.
 
There's been tons of verification that Hussein moved his NBC weapons to Syria; both from eyewitnesses and Israeli intelligence services.

You know, it is interesting - a few years ago, this precisely connection would have been leaped upon by our friends on the left, as it would have allowed them to blame George Bush.
 
I'm pretty sure that part is not true.

I could mistaken. It happens on a rare occasion. However, it doesn't change the eyewitness testimony.
 
-----------------

Probably true.
I would counter with the fact that poison gas WMDs have been around for over a century.
Any reasonably advanced country can build and disperse this product.
While the effectiveness and control of the gas is problematic on a battlefield, I think gassing a civilian populace would be easy....too easy.

That is correct - any reasonably advanced country probably has the assets (if they put their resources into that effort) into building and employing CW. But if the Syrian Resistance is doing it, then it is most likely because they got those weapons from somewhere, because it is unlikely they made them themselves.
 
You know, it is interesting - a few years ago, this precisely connection would have been leaped upon by our friends on the left, as it would have allowed them to blame George Bush.
-------------------
Probably so.
Partisanship will out.
I would say that allowing the much touted WMDs to be moved pre-war, would have been negligent.
However, since GW's administration never made such a claim, I doubt it happened.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have wasted so much time looking in Iraq.
 
Doing it in 1941 didn't get us in trouble. In fact, waiting until 1941 cost far more American lives.

In 1941 WE were attacked; first by Japan on Pearl Harbor and then by declaration of war by Nazi Germany. Acting in self-defense is not the same as "vetting a good guy" and intervening militarily in the internal affairs of a country involved in a civil war.

There were vettable good guys in Iraq after Desert Storm. Did we support them? No. The Result? The invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Recall we did not overthrow Saddam during Desert Storm, so there was no "vetting" and "replacing" going on. As for the "re-invasion" of Iraq in 2003? I did not support that and there was no reason for it except Bush Jr. wanted a little war all his own. P.S. Saddam was originally one of our "good guys" too, especially when he was focused on fighting Iran.

There were vettable good guys in Iran a few years ago. Did we support them? No. The result? That remains to be seen, as Iran's nuclear capabilities grow everyday.

A few years ago? What are you talking about? You mean starting ANOTHER war but this time with Iran? Recall we originally thought we HAD a "vetted good guy" in there with the Shah of Iran, and despite all reason we KEPT him there. If we had not supported him perhaps there would not be a problem with Iran now.

There were vettable good guys in Rwanda. Did we act? No. The result? Nearly a million innocent people were murdered.

Rwanda was, and is still not our problem. I doubt seriously there were any "good guys" who would have done any different. There was a lot of hate between the ethnic groups there, thanks to colonialism and fake borders uniting differing peoples.

The notion that we should turn a blind eye to EVERY crisis is naïve, at best.

Sorry, and where did you get the notion I hold that we should turn a blind eye? Did you miss the humanitarian aid part? Did you miss the sanctuary part? Did you miss the economic and political action part? Elsewhere I have also stated that we act to keep other nations from getting involved. I also advocate support of treaty allies under the terms agreed by the alliance.

I just don't think we are the World's Policeman. Acting like it has gotten us into trouble over and over and over again. We make few lasting freinds, but many lasting enemies.
 
Last edited:
You know, it is interesting - a few years ago, this precisely connection would have been leaped upon by our friends on the left, as it would have allowed them to blame George Bush.

I doubt it, because they worked so hard blaming Bush for NOT finding NBC weapons. It would have runined their entire narrative.
 
In 1941 WE were attacked; first by Japan on Pearl Harbor and then by declaration of war by Nazi Germany. Acting in self-defense is not the same as "vetting a good guy" and intervening militarily in the internal affairs of a country involved in a civil war.

Because we waited to be attacked, before becoming involved, we lost nearly a half million Americans on the battlefield.



Recall we did not overthrow Saddam during Desert Storm, so there was no "vetting" and "replacing" going on. As for the "re-invasion" of Iraq in 2003? I did not support that and there was no reason for it except Bush Jr. wanted a little war all his own. P.S. Saddam was originally one of our "good guys" too, especially when he was focused on fighting Iran.

There was an uprising, post-Desert Storm, that we should have supported, but didn't.



A few years ago? What are you talking about? You mean starting ANOTHER war but this time with Iran?

This is what I'm talking about...

2009

Recall we originally thought we HAD a "vetted good guy" in there with the Shah of Iran, and despite all reason we KEPT him there. If we had not supported him perhaps there would not be a problem with Iran now.

I think it's safe to say that the cats in their now are much worse than the Shah ever thought of being and I doubt that the Islamofacists would hate us any less, had he not been there. Don't forget, the dude that proceeded the Shah was allying himself with the Soviets. Mosa Deg also dissolved parliament and the constitution, much the same way that Morsi recently did in Egypt



Rwanda was, and is still not our problem. I doubt seriously there were any "good guys" who would have done any different. There was a lot of hate between the ethnic groups there, thanks to colonialism and fake borders uniting differing peoples.

The Tootsi and the Hutu were at each other long before the Europeans showed up. Just because they've been going at it for a thousand years, doesn't mean they don't have to catch up with the rest of the world.



Sorry, and where did you get the notion I hold that we should turn a blind eye? Did you miss the humanitarian aid part? Did you miss the sanctuary part? Did you miss the economic and political action part? Elsewhere I have also stated that we act to keep other nations from getting involved. I also advocate support of treaty allies under the terms agreed by the alliance.

I just don't think we are the World's Policeman. Acting like it has gotten us into trouble over and over and over again. We make few lasting freinds, but many lasting enemies.

The Fillipinos are our friends; the South Koreans; Grenadans, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom