Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

Syria however houses Russia's last naval base outside of the now defunct Soviet Union, .. plus other facts.. makes me think that you are incorrect in that the U.S. is pro Assad, even though he's a secularist (I believe).

Oh no, the US is far from "pro-assad". There are simply no good outcomes here for the US.

That doesn't mean it is necessarily a net gain for the US to depose the regime.

The US did not succeed in imposing a regime in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya. Why would Syria be different? It wouldn't. We've learned our lesson.
 
Yeah, just read that. Ok, i now am convinced, given that the report states a number of times that the US government is highly confident that Assad used the chemicals. The evidence sited included the specific mentioning of a number of unnamed and shadowy sources, but still those should be deemed as sufficient given that the US government knows what those are and you should trust it.

(it is amazing just how low a view of the american citizens and their ability to reason this US government and those before it seems to have).

1233475_632446413444207_848649448_n.jpg


:/

In the case of the USA, politicians seem to be able to fool most people most of the time. Good-cop, bad-cop still works fine.

Are you done splooging about how stupid you think America and American politicians are or should I pass the lube?

You've just been in an infinite loop, repeating the same stuff and insulting Americans. Gets old dude. Find some new material.
 
I find it far more reasonable to conclude that Asaad is genuinely a horrible person who would commit such heinous acts, than that the U.S. is seeking to charge forward into a war that its people and the international community disagrees with.
 
Cut him some slack.

What else is there to do in Greece but go online and spew lies about a country that is much more financially sound?
 
I find it far more reasonable to conclude that Asaad is genuinely a horrible person who would commit such heinous acts, than that the U.S. is seeking to charge forward into a war that its people and the international community disagrees with.

I don't see how that is reasonable at all, The US charging into war is much more believable.
 
"There is a certain weariness, given Afghanistan. There is a certain suspicion of any military action post-Iraq. And I very much appreciate that,” he said. "It’s important for us to recognize that when over a thousand people are killed, including hundreds of innocent children, through the use of a weapon that 98 or 99% of humanity says should not be used even in war, and there is no action, then we’re sending a signal… That is a danger to our national security.”

President Barack Obama
 
Cut him some slack.

What else is there to do in Greece but go online and spew lies about a country that is much more financially sound?

So you are replying with insulting his country too? It seems you do not have smarter people in your so much more financially sound country.


On the other hand I am glad the British, Germans, Polish backed off and am eager to see how Obama will get out of this situation. Hopefully without warmongering.

Of course Hollande will keep pushing just to divert attention from his domestic politics.
 
"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
 
Oh. I'd say they were pretty (maybe not unavoidably) wrong long before Bush.

edit:
Spoiler :
I rather like that: "wrong long before Bush". Kind of jingly.
 
It is really interesting to see Republicans like McCain demand the US take action - until Obama gets ready to take action then it's the worst thing eva.
 
I am currently blinded and paralyzed by outrage at some nations' complete and utter disregard for human life. I will address your points there sometime later.

I hope I don't give the impression I'm making points, I'm pretty conflicted on the whole thing myself. Call the chamberpot thread the "convince Antilogic of the general goodness or badness of intervening in civil wars" thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom