World reacts to new chemical weapon attack in Syria

[ivwshane]

You've not answered my query about your inconsistent approach to the moral question of using chemical weapons. Why you lectured people in this thread about sitting idle in the face of such atrocities, whiling arguing in 2013 that these deaths were the same as all the rest. In fact, I don't see how, based on your logic in 2013, that you could possibly justify any sort of strike by Trump in 2017. According to DSF version 2013, the distinction between death due to chemical weapons and deaths due to other causes was "arbitrary." Applying that logic to 2017, if Trump strikes over the use of chemicals, why shouldn't he strike tomorrow over barrel bombs, or anything else that causes civilian causalities, right?

Since we're clear that you've ducked that issue, let's now talk about the point you DID make. Namely, the fact that you're misrepresenting historical facts. Obama was planning an airstrike. Nothing more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html

That is just one example. IIRC, it was covered that way pretty much everywhere.

Now, he did submit an open ended request to be permitted to use his discretion in employing military force in Syria. That's because you don't ask Congress to authorize a single airstrike. They don't get to micromanage that way. So in theory, even though he planned just one airstrike, he could have used more force later on under the same authorization. However, Obama never said anything about wanting boots on the ground, mucking around in their civil war, or any large scale involvement that would result in US casualties. Show me where he said any of those things.

You're just making this stuff up after the fact.

That's because DSF is a liar and a hypocrite. Its a surprise to no one who's interacted with him.

 

[jackstar7]

Watch it, woolfe, you're going to get... BLOCKED!

 

[Pens1566]

Tuned back in to see the sequel. Yep, DSF still taking a beating.