Syria loads chemical weapons into bombs; military awaits Assad's order

[irishScott]

Hitler wasn't our problem.

Yeah, he kinda was. Namely he was taking over continents and declared war on us. Assad's a douche, but he's no real threat to us.

 

[Jaskalas]

It's a good point to question just how many would die in a limited chemical attack. So many have died already, why do we care HOW they die?

 

[Juror No. 8]

Funny ain't it? The guy has literally been killing scores of his own peoples using conventional means for a while know.

Yes, just as the U.S. government has been killing scores of its own people by sending them off to die in a bunch of pointless wars for a while now.

Maybe we should invade BrainWashington, D.C. instead?

 

[irishScott]

Am I the only one who sees the potential irony here? If Assad goes full retard with the chemicals, we may very well find ourselves in a UN-sanctioned invasion of the middle east over weapons of mass destruction.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Yes, just as the U.S. government has been killing scores of its own people by sending them off to die in a bunch of pointless wars for a while now.

Maybe we should invade BrainWashington, D.C. instead?

There is always some idiot trying to deflect the real issue which is Syria and chemical weapons...

 

[JEDIYoda]

Do you get paid every time you use the word conservatard?

No she does not get paid but the word "conservatard" sure does apply to you...

 

[WelshBloke]

Do you get paid every time you use the word conservatard?

Should he use Republicunt?

 

[irishScott]

LOL.

Seriously, do any of you actually believe this shit? "Intelligence sources"?

Allow me to translate:

Intelligence sources = "We fucking made this shit up and know you sheep won't question it."

So do you have some actual information proving the statement false or are you just spouting baseless assumptions again?

 

[Generator]

Time to carpet bomb the shit out of their planes. We cannot in good conscience let a chemical genocide take place, I imagine.

What a dumb fucking opinion this is. I've been watching Oliver's Stone history of the United States. He points out how so much moral grief was generated from dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What has been forgotten is the the US used conventional bombs on Tokyo's paper city. Bombed it to shit.

What difference is it to the world that Assad kills with bombs or gas? Good conscience? Its not on anyone's conscience at all but Assad. Its clear that this man has gone to ground trying to duck CIA's funded rebels. He will go for broke regardless of outside influenence. This cretin is in a corner with no options. The absurdity of attacking Syria with open tactics ensures gas attack.

If people don't want wmds to be used, I suggest stop selling them these weapons. Exactly what fucking idiot in what stupid administration thought selling these middle east countries these weapons? Why would you ever give Saddam Hussein Sarin gas?! What fucking Republican brain trust came up with treason?

 

[NTMBK]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_mark

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douchebag

 

[Olikan]

Hitler wasn't our problem.

the funny part is that it wasn't, until japan atacked...

 

[DominionSeraph]

your the one pigeon holing me to fit your limited brain capacity.

The thing is, if you aren't bright enough to be a liberal and not dumb enough to be a conservatard sheep, you don't really matter much. If you're not smart enough to be a help and not stupid enough to follow the conservatard herd down the path of blind obstructionism, you don't pop up on the radar.

If you want to be relevant on the Right you must go full retard. Liberals own the scientific method, so if you try to be reality-based but you can't lift yourself up to liberal thought you're just going to be at the bottom of the liberal stack. So I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you use the ridiculous, nonsensical methodology of conservatards and so don't belong there at all.

 

[zsdersw]

 

[Pr0d1gy]

the hate on the Troops i don't get. they are just kids trying to get a education, make a living or even support the US. They do deserve the support. they aren't the ones makeing the decision to start wars.

Blame the president, congress etc. they are the ones that have kept us in one conflict after another.

Oh God, here we go. You gonna sing the Star Spangled Banner for me while you're in here defending the troops from a supposed attack on their character? Obviously, I didn't mean fuck the troops as in I hate our servicepeople, rather in the vein of fuck sending them anywhere else. Give them a break. We have had servicepeople in the line of fire for the past 50+ years. It's time to give it a rest.

 

[Nintendesert]

Yeah, no thanks. Dead is dead and how you get there really doesn't matter if it's a machete cutting off limbs, bullets ripping apart a body or gases choking and drowning their victims. Dead is dead at the hands of a dictator. All this is is building to another fucking excuse to go to war with yet another Middle East country. I fought the other two, I don't want to fight another one. Wasn't Libya enough for our Peace Prize winning administration??

No more. It's time to rebuild here in America and worry about the American worker and not the Middle East cave dweller.

 

[werepossum]

As soon as someone starts using chemical weapons it is no longer about politics, this is about humanity. The US and anyone who wishes to help should step up and do what's right. Drop your political affiliation at the door and support our American President and our American troops.

Agreed. I don't have much remaining faith in government, but I do still have faith that no American President will commit American troops to fight and die unless he or she thinks it is the best thing to do for the nation. If Obama chooses to act more directly, I will assume that in accordance with the intelligence he currently has, he thinks it is necessary. Therefore I will support him as I did in Libya and as I did with Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan, whether or not it seems like the best thing to do for the nation given the necessarily very restricted intelligence available to the general public. I really hope it can be avoided as I think our days of being the world's policeman should end, and I'm tired of helping pave the way for the newest Muslim Brotherhood nation, but if Obama chooses military force I'll assume he thinks it necessary and has made the best decision based on the intel he has available.

Personally, in principle I think if we have solid evidence that he is preparing WMD to be delivered by plane, we should set up a UN no-fly zone over the parts of the country he does not control. But I can also accept that the President must factor into account Russian sentiment - don't want to start World War III here - as well as Syria's air defenses and alternative delivery systems and our relations with other nations; none of this happens in a vacuum. The equation as seen from CNN may not much resemble the equation as seen from the Oval Office, and we would all do well to remember that.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Yeah, no thanks. Dead is dead and how you get there really doesn't matter if it's a machete cutting off limbs, bullets ripping apart a body or gases choking and drowning their victims. Dead is dead at the hands of a dictator. All this is is building to another fucking excuse to go to war with yet another Middle East country. I fought the other two, I don't want to fight another one. Wasn't Libya enough for our Peace Prize winning administration??

No more. It's time to rebuild here in America and worry about the American worker and not the Middle East cave dweller.

Exactly.

 

[airdata]

What does Iraq have to do with anything, moron?

lol

If you can't connect the dots with respect to a discussion about propaganda then that's your problem.

It really makes you wonder, doesn't it?

There's a certain point where people seem to forget that we used fraudulent information and bullshit in order to sell a war with iraq that's seen hundreds of thousands of innocent people maimed and killed.

Then after the nonexistent wmd aren't found, they make dopes like this believe that we went to war to liberate the iraqi people. Because, Idiots don't have good enough memories to remember the whole WMD shpeel to goto war.

 

[airdata]

......

“Obama playing up ‘WMD’ threat in Syria is bold and hysterical. Who will go to UN to show ‘evidence’ this time? Maybe one of the Rices,” tweeted the editor of DrudgeReport.com, in the aftermath of the Obama administration’s increasing hype over a chemical weapons threat based on little else but hearsay and conjecture.
Drudge’s reference to the UN is of course a reminder that contrived threats about Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction were used to grease the skids for an attack on Iraq that has cost over a trillion dollars and well over 4,000 dead U.S. troops over the last nine and a half years.
In February 2003, Colin Powell went before the U.N. Security Council and claimed that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction and refused to disarm. He dramatically held up a vial of white powder, remarking that the same amount had shut down the U.S. Senate in 2001.
Most of the claims Powell made during the speech, including the infamous ‘Niger yellowcake’ issue, were fabricated and based on the testimony of an intelligence asset named Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi or “Curveball” – an Iraqi defector who later admitted that he had completely manufactured lies about Saddam having mobile bioweapons trucks and clandestine factories.
Powell later admitted that he was “misled” before the UN speech and said that he regretted the incident.
Syria’s President Bashar Al-Assad has repeatedly asserted that Syria will not use its chemical weapons arsenal to target rebel fighters, never mind the civilian population. To do so would be an act of geopolitical suicide given that Obama and Hillary Clinton have made it clear this is a “red line” that will mandate US military intervention.
The sudden deluge of hysteria suggesting, “The Syrian military is prepared to use chemical weapons against its own people and is awaiting final orders from President Bashar Assad,” is based entirely on dubious claims by anonymous “US officials”.
Indeed, the only evidence that suggests chemical weapons may be in preparation for use in Syria comes from a video which apparently shows US-backed Syrian rebels testing chemical weapons on rabbits in a lab while bragging about how they will deploy them to kill pro-Assad Allawites.
Fabricated lies about weapons of mass destruction were cited as the primary reason for invading Iraq, a justification that was proven to be completely fraudulent. It’s astounding that the US military-industrial complex and the establishment media are once again resorting to the same infantile propaganda in an attempt to grease the skids for military intervention in Syria, which just like Iraq has been planned well in advance.
*********************

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, no thanks. Dead is dead and how you get there really doesn't matter if it's a machete cutting off limbs, bullets ripping apart a body or gases choking and drowning their victims. Dead is dead at the hands of a dictator. All this is is building to another fucking excuse to go to war with yet another Middle East country. I fought the other two, I don't want to fight another one. Wasn't Libya enough for our Peace Prize winning administration??

No more. It's time to rebuild here in America and worry about the American worker and not the Middle East cave dweller.

There is a difference though between dealing death retail and dealing death wholesale. And there is a difference between shooting someone who is shooting at you, and accidentally killing non-combatants when returning fire, and indiscriminately murdering women and children in the hopes that brutality will sap the other side's will to fight. The end result is the same and it's always a gray line between what is acceptable - fire-bombing a city arguably causes more death and misery than gassing a city - but we've established certain ground rules by which we must all abide, certain things which we have collectively decided are intolerable and call for action.

President Obama is all about the American worker and I'm sure he'd much rather be concentrating on transforming our nation to his liking - or on his golf game - than dealing with this. Nonetheless, other people have value too, and while his focus must value Americans over Syrians, it can't be exclusively about Americans. If he acts, it won't be because of his legacy or the Noble Peace Prize committee, it will be about humanity, America, and our long term best interests. Which obviously is no guarantee he'll make the right decision, but I have confidence that if he makes the wrong decision it will be for reasons he thought were good and sufficient.

 

[airdata]

Also,

Everybody should watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DJ--Z3lvaQ

-Iraq
-Syria
-Lebanon
-Lybia
-Somalia
-Sudan
-Iran

 

[Exterous]

This is what I was going to post. If Assad tomorrow kills a couple hundred with gas all the sudden shit changes when he has killed something like 20,000 already with more conventional means?

If I had to guess, I would say the only way Assad goes on a rampage with chemical weapons is if he knows his time is up and wants to go out in a blaze of glory. And I really don't see that happening.

Yeah, no thanks. Dead is dead and how you get there really doesn't matter if it's a machete cutting off limbs, bullets ripping apart a body or gases choking and drowning their victims. Dead is dead at the hands of a dictator. All this is is building to another fucking excuse to go to war with yet another Middle East country. I fought the other two, I don't want to fight another one. Wasn't Libya enough for our Peace Prize winning administration??

No more. It's time to rebuild here in America and worry about the American worker and not the Middle East cave dweller.

There is a difference between using a machete, guns, conventional bombs to kill vs chemical weapons (or nuclear for that matter). Chemical weapons have a vastly greater killing potential and are typically more indiscriminate killers over a larger area. Furthermore I believe that a line has to be drawn at some point and the differential between conventional and chemical seems to be a good one. In addition, if the international community does not react harshly to the use of chemical weapons it would only serve as an indicator for others to go ahead and use them as well. War is bad enough. Wide spread chemical warfare use is worse

Also - just keep in mind that a grenade is a WMD

 

[airdata]

Jesus Christ, can we please stop talking about Iraq!!!!! Go make your own Iraq thread.

Don't get enough replies.

Nobody wants to admit to our past mistakes or to look at patterns and see that iraq wasn't the first time we've used bullshit to make people think we need to goto war.

Look at vietnam... same thing.

Some even believe pearl harbor was along the same lines.

 

[monovillage]

Don't get enough replies.

Nobody wants to admit to our past mistakes or to look at patterns and see that iraq wasn't the first time we've used bullshit to make people think we need to goto war.

Look at vietnam... same thing.

Some even believe pearl harbor was along the same lines.

Remember the Maine!! or was that the Lusitania?

 

[Nintendesert]

There is a difference though between dealing death retail and dealing death wholesale. And there is a difference between shooting someone who is shooting at you, and accidentally killing non-combatants when returning fire, and indiscriminately murdering women and children in the hopes that brutality will sap the other side's will to fight. The end result is the same and it's always a gray line between what is acceptable - fire-bombing a city arguably causes more death and misery than gassing a city - but we've established certain ground rules by which we must all abide, certain things which we have collectively decided are intolerable and call for action.

President Obama is all about the American worker and I'm sure he'd much rather be concentrating on transforming our nation to his liking - or on his golf game - than dealing with this. Nonetheless, other people have value too, and while his focus must value Americans over Syrians, it can't be exclusively about Americans. If he acts, it won't be because of his legacy or the Noble Peace Prize committee, it will be about humanity, America, and our long term best interests. Which obviously is no guarantee he'll make the right decision, but I have confidence that if he makes the wrong decision it will be for reasons he thought were good and sufficient.

What difference is there between roving death squads killing tens of thousands and using a chemical agent to kill tens of thousands? The end is still tens of thousands dead at the hands of a dictator.

Nobody went after Saddam when he gassed the Kurds, look at all the opposition to going into Iraq and killing him. So is there a statute of limitations on when a dictator can be ousted for using chemical weapons?

You all want war. Fine. Go fight it. Enlist your sons, enlist yourself. Unless you're over 42 you can enlist in the Army. Put your life where your warmongering mouth is. I did and fought in Iraq and Afghanistan and spent years of my life in those countries. Will you? Will everyone else that's clamoring for more war? I have my doubts.