IGX

When it comes to muslims killing muslims, there's nothing wrong with gassing each other.

nafod wrote: Syria used chem weps to send a message to the West as much as anyone. Now we send a message back. The message is, "Fight your war, but don't use WMDs."

Am I the only one that thinks it's a weak and arbitrarily-defined message?

kreator wrote:

nafod wrote: Syria used chem weps to send a message to the West as much as anyone. Now we send a message back. The message is, "Fight your war, but don't use WMDs."

Am I the only one that thinks it's a weak and arbitrarily-defined message?

No, you're not.

kreator wrote:

nafod wrote: Syria used chem weps to send a message to the West as much as anyone. Now we send a message back. The message is, "Fight your war, but don't use WMDs."

Am I the only one that thinks it's a weak and arbitrarily-defined message?

How so? The use of WMDs including chemical weapons have been especially prohibited through a pile of International Laws. Clear line to cross.

nafod wrote:

kreator wrote:

nafod wrote: Syria used chem weps to send a message to the West as much as anyone. Now we send a message back. The message is, "Fight your war, but don't use WMDs."

Am I the only one that thinks it's a weak and arbitrarily-defined message?

How so? The use of WMDs including chemical weapons have been especially prohibited through a pile of International Laws. Clear line to cross.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_hos ... ical_agent

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

kreator wrote:

nafod wrote: Syria used chem weps to send a message to the West as much as anyone. Now we send a message back. The message is, "Fight your war, but don't use WMDs."

Am I the only one that thinks it's a weak and arbitrarily-defined message?

How so? The use of WMDs including chemical weapons have been especially prohibited through a pile of International Laws. Clear line to cross.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_hos ... ical_agent

Regarding Iraq, is your point that we should have responded but didn't?

The payback for the Russians was more immediate, as the gas killed most of the people they were trying to rescue in the first place.

baffled wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Terry B. wrote:The only real difference thus far is that John Kerry isn't as polished of a liar as Colin Powell was.

What?

Double what. Kerry is a fine liar. How dare you question his ability to spew utter bullshit?

Heading to the floor of the Security Council with an entire pitch prepared is a different level than passing of what you know to be untrue to reporters.

Batboy2/75 wrote:

Terry B. wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:Hypocrisy. That is the lesson that is on display.

From the President, to his corrupt party, to the nut less hacks Congress, down to the petty tyrants that voted for a demagogue.

Calm down. The peace loving folks on the other side of the aisle who are suddenly concerned with having congressional approval every step of the way and who are dead set against interfering in the affairs of other countries are just as hypocritical. The only real difference thus far is that John Kerry isn't as polished of a liar as Colin Powell was.

Except the other side of the aisle got gongressional approval. That little tid bit you left out.

Nobody said that Obama had received Congressional approval yet.

nafod wrote:

kreator wrote:

nafod wrote: Syria used chem weps to send a message to the West as much as anyone. Now we send a message back. The message is, "Fight your war, but don't use WMDs."

Am I the only one that thinks it's a weak and arbitrarily-defined message?

How so? The use of WMDs including chemical weapons have been especially prohibited through a pile of International Laws. Clear line to cross.

Civilians will be so much happier to die from cruise missiles than from chemical weapons.

Terry B. wrote:

baffled wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Terry B. wrote:The only real difference thus far is that John Kerry isn't as polished of a liar as Colin Powell was.

What?

Double what. Kerry is a fine liar. How dare you question his ability to spew utter bullshit?

Heading to the floor of the Security Council with an entire pitch prepared is a different level than passing of what you know to be untrue to reporters.

I'm not suggesting that either Powell or Kerry lied in their respective capacities as Sec. of State (Saddam had used WMDs on multiple occasions and was interfering with the investigations FWIW), but that is a pathetically weak response.

SSDD.

Turdacious wrote:

Terry B. wrote:

baffled wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Terry B. wrote:The only real difference thus far is that John Kerry isn't as polished of a liar as Colin Powell was.

What?

Double what. Kerry is a fine liar. How dare you question his ability to spew utter bullshit?

Heading to the floor of the Security Council with an entire pitch prepared is a different level than passing of what you know to be untrue to reporters.

I'm not suggesting that either Powell or Kerry lied in their respective capacities as Sec. of State (Saddam had used WMDs on multiple occasions and was interfering with the investigations FWIW), but that is a pathetically weak response.

A former general and current Secretary of State going to the floor of the Security Council to lie his ass off to invade a country that posed no threat to the US puts Powell at the bottom of the barrel in terms of in terms of dishonest politicians.

People like you who judge a war by the person in office who calls the shots are the reason the entire system is as sick as it is.

Terry B. wrote:A former general and current Secretary of State going to the floor of the Security Council to lie his ass off to invade a country that posed no threat to the US puts Powell at the bottom of the barrel in terms of in terms of dishonest politicians.

You're forgetting what Kerry's position was in government at the time. Conveniently.

Terry B. wrote:People like you who judge a war by the person in office who calls the shots are the reason the entire system is as sick as it is.

Except I'm not and I don't. A pathetic ad hominem.

nafod wrote:

kreator wrote:

nafod wrote: Syria used chem weps to send a message to the West as much as anyone. Now we send a message back. The message is, "Fight your war, but don't use WMDs."

Am I the only one that thinks it's a weak and arbitrarily-defined message?

How so? The use of WMDs including chemical weapons have been especially prohibited through a pile of International Laws. Clear line to cross.

Attacking only when WMDs are used is bizarre.
The implication is that the US will not interfere with al-Assad if he murders 50,000 or however many he wants via conventional methods, but if he murders 5,000 with chemical methods then we will interfere. I'm sure the civilians will understand the difference when the US drops bombs in their general vicinity.

There's also that little fact that there's no way of knowing for certain that these weapons are eliminated, short of getting feet on the ground to verify. What are the metrics for success? And what's to prevent Syrian forces from caching troops and supplies in schools and hospitals, which are certainly not going to be targets for the US (right?).

nafod wrote:Syria used chem weps to send a message...

1. What about that message
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

Testimony from victims of the conflict in Syria suggests rebels have used the nerve agent, sarin, a leading member of a UN commission of inquiry has said.

2. Where the proofs of that chemical weapon was used at all? Proofs ar so secret that US Governet dosen't reveals :)
How naive must be those who can buy it???

kreator wrote:

nafod wrote:

kreator wrote:

nafod wrote: Syria used chem weps to send a message to the West as much as anyone. Now we send a message back. The message is, "Fight your war, but don't use WMDs."

Am I the only one that thinks it's a weak and arbitrarily-defined message?

How so? The use of WMDs including chemical weapons have been especially prohibited through a pile of International Laws. Clear line to cross.

Attacking only when WMDs are used is bizarre.

Chemical weapons are uniquely terrible and get unique attention across the planet. While it appears now that the West is trending towards its traditional role of pussying out and looking the other way, the fact that there is all this hand wringing over it tells you that folks feel viscerally that chemical weapons cross some sort of divide.

Human can rationalize anything, and you are well on the path to rationalizing chemical weapons as No Big Deal. I'm not there, and don't plan to be.

Welcome to Ametuer Hour.

The President Now decides he should get Congressional Approval, but says he will still act anyways if he doesn't get the answer he wants.

Meanwhile, not one person in the media is reporting on the longer term game that shaping up in the Middle East. The Sunnis are clearing the middle east of secular governments and kingdoms that stand in their way.Jordan will be next. As usual our "Ally" Saudi Arabia is the thick of this mess; funding the Islamic wack jobs.

Batboy2/75 wrote: The President Now decides he should get Congressional Approval, but says he will still act anyways if he doesn't get the answer he wants.

I've got a different take: he's setting up the need for Congressional approval as his way out. If Congress approves, he can say it's America's decision-the people have spoken. If they say "no way" then he can claim he tried his hardest but no tomahawks today.

Either way he's slipping out of having this clusterfuck land solely and squarely on his shoulders.

The Amateur hour started when the President announced his red line in the sand "threat". If he meant it, he should have just done it. No talk, just boom. But betting he didn't mean it and his staff didn't vet it much if at all. I support any President's decision to use the US Military how he chooses to look out for US interests. Even to the point of supporting this President in strong actions. But this sequence of events is amateurish to an extreme. This is why you do not elect Democrats to National office without great negative impact on US citizens and their economy.

If you order the code red on Santiago, you better fucking mean it.

Turdacious wrote:

Terry B. wrote:A former general and current Secretary of State going to the floor of the Security Council to lie his ass off to invade a country that posed no threat to the US puts Powell at the bottom of the barrel in terms of in terms of dishonest politicians.

You're forgetting what Kerry's position was in government at the time. Conveniently.

Terry B. wrote:People like you who judge a war by the person in office who calls the shots are the reason the entire system is as sick as it is.

Except I'm not and I don't. A pathetic ad hominem.

No, he's just an idiot and a liberal.

When a nation (That was a confirmed member of the few to have used WMDs in the past) who's ass you stomped signs an agreement with you to stop stomping his ass and in that agreement it says you can inspect any fucking thing and place you want or you can resume the asskicking, you own him and don't need the UN's permission to do shit.

Everyone conveniently forgets that.

nafod wrote:

kreator wrote:

nafod wrote:

kreator wrote:

nafod wrote: Syria used chem weps to send a message to the West as much as anyone. Now we send a message back. The message is, "Fight your war, but don't use WMDs."

Am I the only one that thinks it's a weak and arbitrarily-defined message?

How so? The use of WMDs including chemical weapons have been especially prohibited through a pile of International Laws. Clear line to cross.

Attacking only when WMDs are used is bizarre.

Chemical weapons are uniquely terrible and get unique attention across the planet. While it appears now that the West is trending towards its traditional role of pussying out and looking the other way, the fact that there is all this hand wringing over it tells you that folks feel viscerally that chemical weapons cross some sort of divide.

Human can rationalize anything, and you are well on the path to rationalizing chemical weapons as No Big Deal. I'm not there, and don't plan to be.

I'm not rationalizing it but I am claiming it
A) cannot be enforced well without an invasion
B) sends the message that conventional carnage is A-OK

Now I ask myself. Would I prefer to die being ripped to pieces by bullets and shrapnel or by being peacefully put to sleep by gas? I'll take the gas, thank you!

kreator wrote:

nafod wrote:

kreator wrote:

nafod wrote:

kreator wrote:

nafod wrote: Syria used chem weps to send a message to the West as much as anyone. Now we send a message back. The message is, "Fight your war, but don't use WMDs."

Am I the only one that thinks it's a weak and arbitrarily-defined message?

How so? The use of WMDs including chemical weapons have been especially prohibited through a pile of International Laws. Clear line to cross.

Attacking only when WMDs are used is bizarre.

Chemical weapons are uniquely terrible and get unique attention across the planet. While it appears now that the West is trending towards its traditional role of pussying out and looking the other way, the fact that there is all this hand wringing over it tells you that folks feel viscerally that chemical weapons cross some sort of divide.

Human can rationalize anything, and you are well on the path to rationalizing chemical weapons as No Big Deal. I'm not there, and don't plan to be.

I'm not rationalizing it but I am claiming it
A) cannot be enforced well without an invasion
B) sends the message that conventional carnage is A-OK

We can't stop chemical weapons use, I agree. We are just adding elements to the decision calculus. Assad joins a very small, select club of Dictators who have used chem weps. How has it worked out for each of them? A little reminder won't hurt.

Conventional carnage A-OK? No. We're just saying we don't care enough about that, which is true.

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

kreator wrote:

nafod wrote: Syria used chem weps to send a message to the West as much as anyone. Now we send a message back. The message is, "Fight your war, but don't use WMDs."

Am I the only one that thinks it's a weak and arbitrarily-defined message?

How so? The use of WMDs including chemical weapons have been especially prohibited through a pile of International Laws. Clear line to cross.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_hos ... ical_agent

Regarding Iraq, is your point that we should have responded but didn't?

The payback for the Russians was more immediate, as the gas killed most of the people they were trying to rescue in the first place.

More that there is nothing in the treaty that requires anyone to respond effectively or at all. It's a red line if we say it's a red line, and only if we back it up. Getting rid of the chemical weapons effectively may involve utilizing ground troops-- exposing them to chemical weapons is a difficult and complicated decision.

Wild Bill wrote:

nafod wrote:Syria used chem weps to send a message...

1. What about that message
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

Testimony from victims of the conflict in Syria suggests rebels have used the nerve agent, sarin, a leading member of a UN commission of inquiry has said.

2. Where the proofs of that chemical weapon was used at all? Proofs ar so secret that US Governet dosen't reveals :)
How naive must be those who can buy it???

Your wasting your time, Bill. They don't want to hear it.
One Syrian source says the Saudis supplied the rebels with the chemical weapons that were used in that "attack".
They very much have a vested interest in deposing Assad. As do the Turks, Egyptians, and the Likudniks in Israel. But for slightly different reasons.