chemical weapons
 

i'm sure everyone knows by now that syria is strongly suspected of making a gas attack.

well, here's my question. why do we care when gas is used? why do we stand by when it's bullets, bombs, missiles, incendiary devices, tanks, planes, etc.

but don't you kill them with gas.

wtf is so special about that one way of killing? why are other ways somewhat 'acceptable' (for lack of a better word), but gas? that's a game changer.

why?

I dunno...but one of reasons Bush invaded Iraq was Saddam was gasing his our people...who gave a shiit?..no one...but it was a rallying cry to march in..
and every country in the world uses those other deadly items and it goes unnoticed or 'not our problem'..:zz: always a hot spot somewhere, i.e. Egypt now, who knows the next one..

because they are the most evil weapon..the gateway weapon to nukes

nice drag bush into it bigrun..

My pleasure..:)..and it was on topic..

chemical weapons are the gateway 'drug' to nukes? i didn't know that.

i'm serious tho. what does it matter the method of killing? either way, you're dead. is it a better kind of dead if you get blown to smithereens, cut in half ala leonidas polk at kennesaw mountain, rather then sucking in vapors and shuffling off this mortal coil?

Bullets are a bit more targeted and usually aimed at the bad guys. The chemical weapons don't disriminate and in this case killed a bunch of kids.

Plus if you are Jewish, gasing people is not one of our favorite passtimes.

I think spyder was spot on. chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction. they're indiscriminate. and they terrorize a population in a way that standard ordinance doesn't.

the precautions that might protect a population from bullets and artillery won't work against a gas weapon. that's why they get classed with biological weapons and nukes.

thanks guys, appreciate it. good points.

just so you know that's where saddam sent them..

http://news.msn.com/world/west-readi...-gas-obscenity


looks like we'll be bombing syria soon.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...he_gassed_iran



The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned.


but, hey, it was iranians, so who cares?

In Iraq the Sunni's were the bad guys..:zz:


Let's be careful out there...Too many heavyweights involved in this mess..
Boots on the ground not an option..

Not us...and in the Iraq/Iran war guess who the U.S. backed and sent arms..
One guess only;)

and which of the two countries did we invade for no valid reason:eek:

Guess who had its leader overthrown by radical Islamists headed by the Ayatollah and had taken over the American embassy complete with taking hostages that were held under disgusting conditions and paraded for a year and a half?

You suggest we should have backed the other side?

Just think how WWII would have turned out if we had backed Japan.:zz:

so jay carney says it's not regime change...but we want assad gone, we're backing the opposition (which is whom, exactly? hezbollah? muslim brotherhood?), we want the current regime punished for the chem. weapons....we want a new admin in there.
but it's not regime change.


right.

:zz::zz: they don't know whether to schitt or go blind, so close one eye and fart..Israel is passing out gas masks, and Netanyahu says they are ready for any possibility..and shows pics of their missles...we have everyone on our side except Russia and China:eek:

i think we'd be better off instituting no fly zones and the like.

actually, i think we should just stay out.
who are our allies in this case? who in syria do we support? if it's another karzai, and syria another a'stan, we need to avoid this at all costs.

at any rate, let's say we bomb...to save innocents being killed? how many will we kill in doing so?

when in doubt, do nothing. why now? just because chemical weapons may have been used?

Fk no, just stay the F out!..No, we backed them and then invaded their country..and removed the buffer between them and Isreal..Iran is 80% Shiite which was Iraq's minority..
We wind up supporting Iraq's Shiites..nice work..


:zz::zz:

Who made us the world's caretaker? Like Rosanne Roseannadanna used to say "it's always something'...

We agree, I too think we should stay the f' out. Maybe a large flyby dropping no bombs could act as the match. Radicals on both sides threaten to murder their daughters and over comics and videos much less their enemies.

The only conceivable reason we would bomb would be to massage the President's ego and back his line in the sand threat.

Contain and not restrain.

We could also approach Russia with the promise to hold off bombing if they give us that punk Snowden back.

Then we could torture the f'k out of him to find out what info he gave away before putting him in Gitmo as an enemy combatant. (He obviously gave his citizenship up for Russia).

You mean the leader that was installed by us after we orchestrated a coup to overthrow Iran's democratically elected leader because we didn't like him nationalizing his own nation's oil industry (which up until then was being exploited by the Brits)? The leader we installed who ruled as a monarch for over 25 years because we were paying the bills? That leader?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

Since you advocate cutting foreign aid as a solution to the national debt, one would have thought you'd have been pleased about a foreign nation telling the USA to take its monetary aid and get stuffed.

who? europe.

we can't win. if we get involved, some complain. if we don't, others complain.

we should and must do what's best for us.


bah, who am i kidding. whomever the bankers want us to back is who we will back.
i'm sick of the wars, the middle east. what have we gained after years of blood and treasure? not a damn thing.

No way...he's the one holding back..

Amen to that..

Is that why our war ships are moving into position in the Mediterranean?

We always move ships to the middle east when trouble brews..

http://news.yahoo.com/on-syria--is-o...151321791.html

President Barack Obama, sure to fall short of getting explicit U.N. approval for any military strikes against Syrian strongman Bashar Assad’s forces and facing potential divisions inside NATO, has instead been assembling allies and partners in a coalition of the willing that recalls the Iraq War.

And where then-President George W. Bush at least got Congress to authorize him to use force against Saddam Hussein, Obama shows no sign of asking lawmakers to do so, preferring instead to engage in “consultations” with key players.

This time, with polls showing weak support for intervention in Syria, lawmakers show no inclination to launch a formal debate on whether to use force against Assad.


so, the un isn't unanimous....neither is nato, with germany not wanting to engage.
congress seemingly won't be asked to weigh in (so much for checks and balances) and the american people don't support intervention either.

there's definitely a lack of consensus. so now what?

to what end do we engage? what goals?

to wage war three things are necessary:
authority of the sovereign
a just cause
a rightful intention

of course that's from st augustine, not the constitution....



does obama have the authority?
what is the cause he wishes to fight for?
what is his intention if we wage any kind of war?


of course there's another quote about three things being necessary to fight.

those would be money, more money and yet more money.

No win situation for him...damned if he does and a puzzy if he doesn't:wf

since there's not a consensus, we can bow out. if both nato and the un aren't in support...

and like i said, what is our goal? is it in our interests to intervene? if so, what interests are those? and how do we intervene? drop a couple bombs? for what?

how does killing people dissuade assad from killing people?