i don't like to be guilt tripped by confused gfyers into bombing countries. i'll respond to that shit in kind.

Who I'm speaking to are those who've already said that even if he bombed his own people with chemical weapons that we should sit on our fattening asses and do nothing! I was VERY clear on that. Those people are idiots and you should realize it too.

People want to talk about lessons of WWII and maybe even think that we should do nothing until.... we're bombed? Is that the lesson we took away!? That our sit back and wait attitude almost let Hitler take over the world, so lets do THAT again to .... prevent WWIII!? Umm.. IDIOCY!


If you and others are still up in the air about this, CONGRATULATIONS you're not an idiot and I never said you were! If you are a person who thinks that we should do nothing even IF a country's leader gassed their own people?? You know what you are and you deserve your plaque of idiocy!!!! Look in the thread, see who they are, call them what they are.

Look, what I said is very clear and I'm sure I don't need to say it again but I will just for the record. If someone here or anywhere is going to say it's OK for a person to gas their own people without punitive punishment, they're an idiot who can't see long term effects of letting that go. YES it's speculation for a lot of people still whether he ordered it, whether it was a third party (evidently the Russians think it was a third party), or whether it was the rebels who did it.. but I don't think that's going to last. Supposedly we have intercepts of the gov. ordering their own troops to ready their gas masks, we saw the launches from gov. controlled areas, and saw where they landed. We've also seen the aftereffects and we know the nations red crescent leader was forbidden to send in help by the government though they deny it. This is called evidence and it's only mounting up higher. To be cynical is fine, to be undecided is normal, but to say even if we KNOW he did it we should do nothing? Pure idiocy!

i understand exactly what you were attempting to get at and i mean every fucking word i wrote.

i am 1 of those who thinks we should not be taking the lead here and we should not be drawing red lines in the sand like 3rd graders.

there's a system in place for this and it's fucking called the united nations.


we are supposed to let them take the lead on human rights violations.

the idiocy here is the usa taking the lead on this by responding with threats of violence as a punishment to assad's violence and what's worse, as a message to other countries.

certainly i don't have to explain wtf is wrong with that logic.

I've had a friend say "I don't know why we should be the worlds police. I'm just plain sick of it and sick of all of these conflicts." While we both agree that killing is killing, and dead is dead, we as a human species have gotten together and decided to BAN certain weapons. If someone else isn't going to do it, at least we have the worlds most jumbo sized military and we've got to be the ones to spank them hard!

This is OUTSIDE of their conflict and I've personally already said that no matter WHO used them, we need to find out and hit the responsible party. It's baffling to me how there could be people who would rather sit back and decide by apathy that killing SOME people with banned weapons is OK! What do you call them? Enlightened? War weary? Sorry; they're dumb.

The united nations. What a noble and failed concept it is. Sorry man, the Russians have veto power. So much for the UN solution. They're a trade partner with Syria and can't afford to dip their toe over there. Local politics trumps global politics. Neutering the UN solution before it is even attempted.

they've killed over 100,000 documented deaths over there while no one did shit. they kill a a couple hundred and now you are up in arms because why? it's not the way they killed the 99,800+ before them?


that makes zero sense. 0

now, *our* reaction to that ( and it is a reaction, it's not a response, there's a huge difference) is to punish them and send a message to other countries by killing more people.

and let's be crystal fucking clear: that is the exact reason we are being given for justification to bomb/attack. it's a punitive reaction and an attempt to send a message.

ummm, that's 3rd grade level diplomacy.

THEY ARE BANNED WEAPONS. PERIOD. What the...?!

YES, dead is dead, so why now? Chemical weapons.

And YES again, it will be a punitive attack! It will be punishment for using chemical weapons which are banned worldwide by treaty. That's the entire point, and it's the entire argument, and it's why this is not taking sides in a civil war, or forpetesakes joining a war. It is going to be a spanking and a damn hard one too in order to remind brutal fuckwits that you're not allowed to kill people that way. Kill them some other way and we'll sit here wringing our hands in debates! Use chemical or nuclear weapons? Fuck no you didn't.

Again, to be undecided or cynical of who made the attacks with the gas is totally normal. But to say outright right now that even if they were used that we should do nothing? Completely moronic and immoral! Those idiots are inviting hell.

Tom, I'd just like to point out the hypocrisy of the U.S. on this matter.

You are saying "banned weapons". Banned by whom?

The Geneva Weapons Convention happened in 1925. It was passed in 1928.
But the United States did NOT ratify it or abide by it until 1974!!!!

Yep, all the other civilized nations of the world did...but us.

We have the worlds largest stockpile of chemical weapons.

We are the biggest supplier of them.

We have USED them in many forms. (bacteriological, chemical, etc.)
I pointed out stuff like Agent Orange which we sprayed by the ton everyday over southeast Asia for a decade.

Our President's going all the way back to Roosevelt have made our country the only civilized Western power that reserves the right to use chemical weapons in a "first strike".

But forget all of that for a second...

Ask yourself: "What will be the results of us bombing Syria"?

How many civilians will WE kill? What will this do to our deteriorating relationship with Russia?

What does it mean for the U.S. to once again commit a war crime (attacking another sovereign nation without provocation...just like Iraq)?

And does killing MORE Syrians with our bombs really "deter" or "punish" the Syrian govt.? And will they now decide "I guess we better never do that again"?

Or is this just the media and our own govt. leading us like sheep into yet another killing field in an Arab country?

As great as the USA is it's just as bad.

:(

you know what? you're right, you've goaded me into siding with you and we should absolutely give them a damn hard spanking eh

i suggest we use mk77 napalm bombs like we did in iraq, etc..then we can just lie about it like we did then too.

that'll learn em all huh.


http://science.howstuffworks.com/napalm4.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0617-01.htm

Napalm...what a nasty, nasty weapon.

It's like jelly gasoline. So it sticks to you and you can't get the fire off of you or put it out. Horrible and painful way to go.

So the word is(just heard on the news) that House Republicans are very opposed to this Syria thing because of "Obama's sequestration of the military and making it so unready".

Translated, that means, "we'll vote yes, as long as you help us get some of those big, bloated, unnecessary government contracts back in our pockets". It's already turning into politics as usual.

By the way, the US military un-readiness thing is a big false narrative created by Republicans.

It's amazing that people believe that our military...which is bigger than the next 10 countries combined...isn't "ready" to shoot a few cruise missiles at a country that can't defend itself. :(

Yep, politicians handing trillions to military contractors is what that is all about.

What a crock of shit about being "un-ready"

We didn't have to spend all this money and build up a giant military to enter WW2 and win that.

But now? With no "real" wars and no "real" country that our enemy...we spend enough goddamned money to feed every starving person on Earth. :(

And the sequester didn't even really cut the military budget. It "cut" the amount it increased. :(

fresh off the presses:

http://www.eutimes.net/2013/09/israe...ed-by-us-navy/

Shoot yourself for posting such retarded nonsense....

:1orglaugh if you have something useful to say, would appreciate it

other than that: :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Looking around that page you can see where he gets most of his info. It is right up his alley.

Worried about an economic nosedive when the fed takes its foot of the peddle? War could be the way to blame a crash instead of 4 years of ZIRP.

Or Hunts ketchup was used at the Kerry/Assad diner.

That is cool music in that vid 2012. I can't remember where I heard it, maybe the Twilight Zone.

Got it, Night Of The Living Dead.

Russia Detected Missiles Launched in Mediterranean, RIA Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/...-ria-says.html

https://sphotos-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/h...22662669_n.jpg

and, unrelated to Syria: Let's just hope the company that brought us Agent Orange never gains control of our food supply. Wait... what?!

that's them saying 'we have no idea'

this is them saying 'we have an idea':

http://rt.com/news/ballistic-launch-...terranean-343/

you were saying?

http://i.imgur.com/JASeZYL.gif

http://i.imgur.com/JASeZYL.gif

kerry, hah, he tried to become president but was beaten by a dimwit.

Yes, I couldn't help but laugh at the sheer hypocrisy of watching John Kerry who famously testified before Congress as a young man PROTESTING the Vietnam War and throwing his medals away in protest...telling Congress that we MUST attack Syria.

And then actually saying that the only leaders who EVER used chemical weapons "besides Aassad" were "Hitler and Sadaam Hussein".

WTF?!?!?!?! He was in Vietnam when they sprayed Agent Orange like it was rain coming down from the skies.

AND, you would think that a govt. official would at least have HEARD about World War 1 when everybody used chemical weapons.

AND you would think that when he made the statement that Syria has "one of the worlds largest supplies of chemical weapons" that he would also be aware that the U.S. itself has the biggest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world.

AND when he said that the leaders of 98% of the world's population had prohibited the use of chemical weapons...he would also know that the U.S. took FIFTY YEARS to join the agreement and then promptly turned back around and voted to RESUME the production of chemical weapons AND reserve the right of "First Strike"

These fucking politicians are lying through their teeth to the people.

Don't they realize that we all have access to something called "Google". Doesn't the Obama administration realize that we can all google up "US and chemical weapons" and read the truth?

yes. which is what i think the current issue is.

Governments lying and invading people is one thing, the bank scandals make all this pale in comparison.

It makes me happy to see more people here with their eyes open.
I think it is a decade too late, but let's hope it spreads and as they say, better late then never.

:thumbsup - We can console ourselves by shooting all the zombies...:1orglaugh - We would have had a chance if people opened their eyes when Reagan was installed.