BS: chemical weapons in Syria

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 01:45 PM

It is getting worse because the U.S. is helping it along by ignoring the U.N.
We could strengthen it by allowing the UN inspectors to do their work. Russia and China need to be heeded for their sensible approach in not going in trigger happy.
Also, it could easily be spread over the Middle East. I wouldn't say it's worse than Iraq
which has been utterly destroyed as a country. It's a different kind of destruction, in Iraq, it's slower acting and has assumed deterioration over time.

Another way to strengthen the UN would be to send in U.S. ambassadors who would
be participants without trying to superimpose U.S. policy and muscle the UN into
accepting a hegemonic foreign policy.

Also, a Palestinian state would help as well.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 12:40 PM

Fair point Peter.
We are already seeing civilians slaughtered by conventional weapons, so what is the difference?

There is now a perception that a regime that takes that extra step will suffer a consequence.
If that perception is lost, it will not be a world changer, but the world will be a worse place.

Stringy, there is already an "an all out civil war in Syria" even worse than the one in Iraq.
Where have you been?

And, the UN is not weak, it is blocked from any action against Assad by Russia and China.
How could we "strengthen" it?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 12:18 PM

I know you built your hopes up Teribus, but it seems like the gas was Sarin. Sorry to disappoint.

Keith, is nerve gas really that much worse than everything else? You are pushing for war on little more than a question of semantics. Assad's dad and uncle between them slaughtered at least 10,000 people, mostly civilians, in 1982. More than 40,000 by some estimates. But his target was the Muslim Brotherhood, so no problem.

Mugabe enforced famine on the Ndebele element of his population, and the West was content that his wife's shopping trips to New York had been curtailed.

The US destroyed communities by the score with defoliants and squirted women and children with nepalm. Did those atrocities just involve the wrong kind of chemicals?

Even within recent weeks we have seen Egypt's army seize power and slaughter thousands of unarmed protesters, and the US will not even call it a coup.

Are the warmongers here seriously arguing that it is the means that matters and not the effect? We may assume that Obama, at least, has broken ranks with them. The Cameron experience has given him at least the possibility of a way out from his hollow and ill-judged red-line bluster.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 12:10 PM

I think Obama was going to be criticized for any decision on this, but I rather approve of letting Congress do its job. I believe that's what most reasonable Americans wanted, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 10:33 AM

Military intervention will strengthen Al Quaeda and make Americans less safe as well
as promote an all out civil war in Syria as is the case in Iraq.

The solution is to advocate for the United Nations to have a response isolating Syria
and decrying the violence that is coming from there through Assad and the rebels.

For the U.S. to ignore or downgrade the U.N. in an advance attack is to prolong the
conflict maybe for decades. With the U.S. track record in Iraq (destruction of the nation)
and Afghanistan (the longest war in U.S. history), the outcome of a military strike is predictable.

If the U.N. is "weak" it is the responsibility of the world's countries including Britain and
the United States to strengthen it rather than attempt to destroy it.

Hitting Syria opens a Pandora's Box.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 06:41 AM

"f not, why try to single out poor old Britain again?"
Enjoy
Jim Carroll

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq04R-ejYws

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 06:00 AM

Jim, white phosphorous is a very hazardous substance.
It is a lie that I would ever call it harmless.

Did any country in the whole world refuse to trade with Syria?
If not, why try to single out poor old Britain again?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 04:05 AM

Incidentally, this is the "toothpaste" that Britain sold Assad
Jim Carroll

Fluoride is THE main ingredient in rat poison.
Fluoride is THE main ingredient in Sarin nerve gas.
Fluoride is THE main ingredient in Prozac.
Fluoride destroys the brain (accumulates the pineal gland), the bones, the organs and causes cancer.
Hitler and Stalin used it in concentration camps and gulags as mass control instrument to make the prisoners docile.
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2010/10/31/

FLUORIDE, HYDROGEN FLUORIDE, AND FLUORINE
What are fluoride, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorine?
Fluorine, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorides are chemically related. Fluorine is a naturally occurring, pale yellow-green gas with a sharp odor. Il combines with hydrogen to make hydrogen fluoride, a colorless gas. Hydrogen fluoride dissolves in waier to form hydrofluoric acid.
Fluorine also combines with metals to make fluorides such as sodium fluoride and calcium fluoride, both while solids. Sodium fluoride dissolves easily in water, hut calcium fluoride does not.
Fluorine and hydrogen fluoride are used to make certain chemical compounds. Hydrofluoric acid is used for etching glass. Fluorides are used in making steel, chemicals, ceramics, lubricants, dyes, plastics and pesticides (for ants and roaches). Fluorides are often added to drinking water supplies and to a variety of dental products, including toothpaste and mouth rinses, to prevent dental cavities.

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW. A CITIZENS GUID TO BIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL AND NUCLEAR AGENTS & WEAPONS
What happens to fluoride, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorine when they enter the environment?
• Fluorine can not be destroyed in the environment, it can only change its form. Fluorine forms salts with minerals in soil, and doesn't evaporate back into air as a gas.
• Hydrogen fluoride gas will be absorbed by rain and into clouds and fog to form hydrofluoric acid, which will fall to the ground.
• Fluorides if released to the air from volcanoes and industry are carried by wind and rain to nearby water, soil, and food sources.
• Fluorides in water and soil will form strong associations with sediment or soil particles.
• Fluorides will accumulate in plants and animals. In animals, the fluoride accumulates primarily in the bones or shell rather than in edible meat.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=q6arweDfwjUC&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=Weapons+sodium+fluoride&source=bl&ots=PZkKfXNEaf&sig=3MEi49Yq

FLUORIDE: A KNOWN CHEMICAL WEAPON
February 19,1999. ALCOA Fined $750,000 by Commerce Department For Illegal Chemical Shipments.
Potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride are controlled because they can be used to make chemical weapons. These chemicals were added to the Department's control list in March 1991, but ALCOA's export compliance program failed to recognize and incorporate the change. There was no indication that in this case the chemicals were used for weapons purposes.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/effects.chem.weapon.precurs.htm


Also:
http://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.ie/2013/01/fluoride-known-chemical-weapon.html

http://rense.com/general79/hd3.htm

http://www.quintessentialpublications.com/tracyrtwyman/?p=2271

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 03:36 AM

What is particularly significant about the use of chemical weapons as a decider as to whether intervention is necessary in the case of any case such as this?
Even before the protests developed into civil war Assad's troops where massacring the citizens of Homs in their thousands - is there a significant difference between women with babies in arms being cut down by sniper fire in Homs (it was reported then that the infants were being deliberately targeted)and them dying from asphyxiation and chemical burns - it's only a matter of degree, the end result is the same - it should have been stopped then
If Syria had possessed a significant oil supply it certainly would have been, Russian and Chinese vetoes notwithstanding.
At the time of Homs, the BBC's 'Question Time' devoted a great deal of time to the subject - the four representative politicians overwhelmingly agreed and Lib-Dem David Steele summed up their view, "it was not in Britain's interests to become involved" (pretty much what is being said here, after the chemical attacks).
The only voice of opposition on the panel was the token 'light relief' on the programme, comedian, Steve Coogan, who made a stunning contribution.
I'm more than happy to fess up that I supported intervention then as I do now.
It would have forced the U.N. to over-ride the vetoes, Assad's attacks could have been prevented from escalating into civil war and the many thousands of innocent non-combatants need not have died - but of course, "it was not in our interest to become involved!"
Assad has not only been allowed to slaughter his own citizens, but he has run rings round the rest of the world and has all-but destroyed the credibility of the United Nations.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 06:34 PM

This whole business about the morality of chemical weapons is a red herring.
The U.S. used depleted uranium in Iraq, Agent Orange in Vietnam, White Phosphorous in Faluja and did the most immoral thing one could do, atomic
weapons in Japan.

If he goes in to Syria without the UN inspection team doing their job, (they are being forced to leave earlier than planned) he will incur the enmity of most every nation
in the world. It will have the opposite effect of making our country safe from terror
attacks. It will prolong the Syrian Civil War and give Al Quaeda an upper hand.
Invasion is a fool's errand.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 06:10 PM

Hey Sock Puppet, you know that thread where you said that we'd keep each other company in 'hell'?..I'm surprised you didn't comeback and respond to the other posts that I did following your statement about that!

Take a look....I don't think I was too far off...AT ALL!

OK..Back to the Mid-East chess game....

..and off to the music room!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: number 6
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 06:03 PM

2 years ago Assad was a problem ... now, the problem is more than Assad, way more than Assad ... it's evolved into a cesspool of inhumanity with forces of evil playing from every which angle .. the whole mess is way to complicated and military intervention will not solve the issue ... in all it will probability fuel more violence with the innocent being even more victimized and the genocide will continue.


biLL

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 05:47 PM

GfS, you're right about that. "Who benefits?" is always the first question to ask.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 05:35 PM

First of all, everybody is going off from the 'news' reports, as to what is happening and 'why'...WRONG!!...The REAL story isn't going to be found in any f the corporate owned media outlets...count on it!
That being said, I was leery about this whole thing, and especially Obama's 'red line' line that he borrowed from Netanyahu, in regards to Iran...There are a few possibilities of what is going on that nobody has been talking about.
That being said, do you think that the ultimate decision is going to be made for 'strategic interests'?, 'tactical interests and advantage'?, 'political interests'?, 'financial interests, and advantages'? and for whom??...or just plain inaptness?

When the reports first came out of the chemical attacks, the first thing that a lot of people did was question the validity of it, being as Bush pulled the same thing...BUT there may be another element, that people have NOT considered, that I know of.

We KNOW that Assad was pushing back the rebels, and gaining considerable ground...why would he use chemicals, and possibly drag us into it against himself???? What makes more sense, is that the rebels used them, to get the U.S. to unwittingly use that against Assad, thereby actually aiding the rebels...but then if the rebels 'won' they would also gain control of those weapons...not 'good'!
Now I'm NOT saying that's what went down, though it could be..but what I AM saying, is there is more in play, than anything we're hearing on the 'news', behind the scenes......
....I'm going to go play some music..........

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 05:34 PM

"They wouldn't get in power if they declared themselves atheist"

Wouldn't actually make any difference in this country or France, just for a start.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 04:48 PM

"Sodium fluoride can not be made into explosives.
It is harmless.
There is no reason not to sell it to anyone."
As is white phosphorus according to you - pity you forgot to mention it to the Palestinian children who had their faces burned off
The west should never have traded with Assad in the first place no matter what
Having denied the existence of a delivery of officially confirmed small arms ammunition (sniper bullets)you are now claiming it is fine to trade with monsters - what kind of evil individual are you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 04:01 PM

I bet none of the Western leaders are "believers"!
How can - for example -a millionaire like Cameron be a follower of word of God ( as presented in the Bible).
No, all those people are far too intelligent to believe in that nonsense!
But A) They wouldn't get in power if they declared themselves atheist
and B) It suits their agenda to have a great many of their citizens believing in the next world, the power of prayer and, rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar's!

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 03:57 PM

Yes!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/31/syrian-air-strikes-obama-congress

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 03:49 PM

North Korea? Doesn't that chap think he is divine?
Anyway, Stalin and Pol Pot didn't commit their crimes in the name of atheism!

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 03:27 PM

And without it of course eveything is lovely, as it was in Cambodia under Pol Pot...or The USSR under Stalin...or those nice secular rules Sadat and Assad...or North Korea...

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 02:07 PM

Human Rights?
Surely, in a Islamic countries, those "rights" are - to a greater or lesser degree ( depending on the country, in question) clearly linked to religious teachings.
I believe the West should emphatically remove any religious references from their constitutions, procedures etc.
Forget "God Bless America!" Forget "God Bless the Queen!"
Any tie-in with religion is a very dangerous thing for a country to do.
The State must be totally separate from the Church!

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 12:21 PM

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 07:10 AM

And you were the first to support Israeli's banning of the export of the essential agricultural fertilzer into Palestine "because it can be used for explosives".
The components of the chemicals sold and their potentioan were well-know when the trade took place, if the exporters were not aware of them they would be breaching all safety regulations.
Assad and his family before him were known tortures and human rights abusers - they should never have been sold anything that might have been used for chemical weaponry, no matter what other uses it might be put to.
Britain not only sold material which could be developed as weapons - they also drew a veil on his human rights record and continued to trade with him and regard him as an ally.
The Assad regime is one of those who the Business Minister Vince Cable described as untrusworthy, yet they traded with them
They totally ignored the Amnesty report on his behaviour and the Syrian people are now paying the consequences.
Jim Carroll


You said it Jim. Now what if Syria decides to retaliate by doing something to Israel? What then, WWIII? These other Western nations are like bad friends who try to get you to do stuff they wouldn't do themselves. I don't see anything military touching this problem.

Have you ever seen this film called "Thirteen Days"? It shows how President Kennedy had to work through back channels to prevent an all out catastrophe. Because those jerks that mill about the Pentagon were trying to start a war without him! War mongers.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 11:50 AM

I can only hope that the US & France & anyone else that is considering "making a point" to Syria about these incidents will be sure they have good evidence and make the response relevant & measured.

Everyone knows the world is not like 1939-40-41 when it was clear who was attacking whom and exactly who made the decisions! Now, those who wish to cause pain & damage to others have learned to be semi-discrete about it in order to get away with just the crap **someone** in Syria is doing these days! We are 99% sure (read John Kerry's explanation yesterday) where the gas came from and which side used it, but the guilty parties have 'some' plausible deniability about exact responsibility. So... WHO do we punish, if anyone at all?
If nothing is done, someone will say.."Ah...as long as we keep it 'occasional' and hide the exact source, we can get away with almost anything!"
If we do anything, some will use OUR response as an excuse to....(see all the ideas above).

There is NO clear & obvious way to combat surreptitious nastiness...yet doing nothing seems to be worse.

I see the British parliament's vote as more of a "we are just tired of sending OUR buys to deal with THEIR fights", rather than a concern for human rights. (I listened to a bunch of the debate.)

I also see the US trending towards unilateral action as scary and a 'no-win' situation.

I wonder what would happen if Russia were to get away from their "whatever is in OUR self interest" mode for awhile...

-------------------------------------------------------------------
.........and those in this thread who use any excuse to personally attack those they disagree with are not helping at all to explain, analyze or clarify the situation! Not that my mentioning it will slow any of you down in your personal feuds.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 09:17 AM

Sodium fluoride can not be made into explosives.
It is harmless.
There is no reason not to sell it to anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 07:10 AM

And you were the first to support Israeli's banning of the export of the essential agricultural fertilzer into Palestine "because it can be used for explosives".
The components of the chemicals sold and their potentioan were well-know when the trade took place, if the exporters were not aware of them they would be breaching all safety regulations.
Assad and his family before him were known tortures and human rights abusers - they should never have been sold anything that might have been used for chemical weaponry, no matter what other uses it might be put to.
Britain not only sold material which could be developed as weapons - they also drew a veil on his human rights record and continued to trade with him and regard him as an ally.
The Assad regime is one of those who the Business Minister Vince Cable described as untrusworthy, yet they traded with them
They totally ignored the Amnesty report on his behaviour and the Syrian people are now paying the consequences.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 13 - 06:34 AM

Jim, your "evidence" against Britain.

"The CAEC said supplies of sodium fluoride, which could be used to make chemical weapons, were sent to Syria in the last couple of years.

Sodium fluoride is a legitimate component of a number of civilian products including toothpaste, but there is no way of knowing what it was used for in the end."

Sodium fluoride is a harmless substance freely available everywhere.
They dose our water with it to protect our teeth
It is not a weapon, although you would not want a big sack to land on your toe.

Meanwhile Russia supplies all the guns tanks aircraft and ammo assad needs to slaughter his people.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Songwronger
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 10:53 PM

The immoderators keep moving my questions about Obama's sanity to this thread. Oh, well. The lunatic depends on a million such acts of craven obeisance per day. Don't forget to sign your children up FIRST when Obama requests cannon fodder.

Subject: BS: How Crazy are Kerry & Obama?
From: Songwronger
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 10:42 PM

Batshit or crazy like foxes?

They bring us to the brink of WW3, but why?

They're talking about a weekend warrior bombing of Syria, but with no troop committment. Why?

Iran has said it will attack Israel if we attack Syria, and Russia has said it will defend Syria. That's WW3. What's to be gained from that? Nothing? Then Kerry & Obama reek of batshit.

Unless the plan is to destroy America. That would advance the agenda greatly, and that would make them crazy like foxes.

Also, if Iran shoots its wad on Israel, then the U.S. troops on the ground can go in and mop up the Persian Empire in, what, 2-3 days? Cunning foxes.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 06:45 PM

This article from the New republic suggests that the US knew about the chemical weapon attack before it took place and questions whether it could have been stopped:

Could the U.S. Have Prevented the Chemical Weapons Attack in Damascus?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 06:23 PM

"I've caught you out and you don't wish to admit it?"

Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 06:21 PM

"Its certainly germaine to the issue under discussion."

How?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 06:18 PM

'Smatter, BooBad - didn't like the song? Its certainly germaine to the issue under discussion.

Or by "glib bullshit reply" do you mean I've caught you out and you don't wish to admit it?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: gnu
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:22 PM

ake... "Still seems to me that de-stabilisation is the name of the game for the West."

Finally! On more than one level.

Yes. That is glib and vague and may be taken as both a compliment and a dig... as intended.

BP knows what will happen (if they have permission). In any case, it'll be a gas.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 05:01 PM

I think the main problem is as guest says, what will fill the vacuum after Mr Assad is removed......and I have a problem with assassination of leaders of sovereign countries.....do we have the right?
Most of us are against the drone warfare which seems to be favoured by Mr Obama, yet we seem to be aux fait with targeted assassination?

Still seems to me that de-stabilisation is the name of the game for the West.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 04:37 PM

Somewhere it was reported that Syria has 8.3 trillion cubic feet (or thereabouts) of natural gas ...that's pretty interesting to a lot of folks i.e. energy corporations.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 04:33 PM

"Here ya go Bobad ol' bud,ENJOY"

Thanks Greg ol' bean, I see from your usual glib bullshit reply that you have really given the issue a lot of thought - a process with which you are apparently not overburdened with.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Ed (
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 04:28 PM

Obama seems to say what happened in Syria (regardless of the culpret) is in the USAs " national interests". Why so? I do understand the humanitarian issue, but- specifically what makes it Syria all of a sudden of USAs "national interest"?

BTW, I understand Russia and Iran s interest in the area- but, I am inpuzzled by China s interest in this issue (I expect it may have in intrerest in bankrupting the USA through foreign conflict, as it is a major banker).

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 04:13 PM

So who replaces Assad when we take him out with Special Forces ...al-Qaeda? That's why Obama has been walking a knife edge on this whole ordeal. Sure, Assad is a bad guy, but if/when he's gone, he leaves a power vacuum that has to be filled by someone, perhaps a Free Syrian Army candidate, or perhaps someone who doesn't give a whit about the good ol' US of A. And that's what worries the US strategists when it comes to Syria.

And why Obama wants a retaliatory strike for chemical weapons but just a "shot across the bow" that doesn't effectively cripple the Assad regime and leave him vulnerable to being taken out by someone over there who's a whole lot worse when it comes to "US interests" than he is.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 03:42 PM

Here are tweo things that can be done...

First, in the mad-dash-to-Iraq I suggested that if Bush and Cheney were so concerned about one man then just take him out and leave everyone else alone... Of course, the war mongers here who wanted a big war to entertain them thought that was an awful idea... Nothing short of war would please them...

So, my first idea is to take Assad out with Special Forces... Oh, and don't think for a minute that we can't do it because we sho nuff can...

Second, charge him with war crimes and issue a $1,000,000 reward for his capture...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 02:59 PM

He has used nerve gas before, on a smaller scale.
The response of the West was exactly what you are advocating we do again.
Nothing.
The result was a bigger atrocity next time.
Why should we expect a different result from the same response.

A few hundred died in the latest atrocity.
Would it make a difference if it was a few thousand next time.
A large attack on a city like Homs would easily achieve that.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 02:50 PM

Just say no, Obama...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 01:55 PM

You've definitely got a point Keith....but the problems are rarely as simple as that when we are talking about retaliation.

If it can be proved that Assad deliberately used nerve gas, some sort of retaliation would be the "right thing to do", but sometimes the right thing to do, is not the "best thing" to do.
Getting rid of Saddam was probably the "right thing to do", but it has not turned out to be the "best thing" for the people of Iraq.

There is nothing simplistic about running these countries or keeping the warring factions from butchering one another.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST,Don Wise
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 01:49 PM

.....Fools rush in where angels fear to tread............

"Putting out the fire with gasoline"

Does the US Administration really want the Bin Laden prize as best al-Qaida recruiting agents???

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 01:31 PM

If we do not treat nerve gas as different to every other form of violent oppression, it will become just as common.

At the moment it is still a "red line."
A "game changer."

If we lose that we condemn unknown thousands to death by nerve gas because any tyrant can get it cheap.

They might hesitate if they know it will cost them their presidential palace.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 12:58 PM

Here ya go Bobad ol' bud,ENJOY

We've come as long way from 1966.

Not.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 11:10 AM

Greg, do you have the same concern for the "collateral damage" incurred by the innocent civilians of Assad's chemical weapons, do they not count? If so do you not think that an attempt should be made to dissuade him from doing so again? I neither support nor oppose what is being proposed as a deterrent but I strongly believe that a message has to be sent, I just don't know what would be the most effective way to do it, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 10:41 AM

Gee, when the U.S. starts bombing Syria back into the stone age I wonder how many innocent civilians will end up as "collateral damage"?

Ooops - I forgot; they don't count.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 10:23 AM

At least you all across the pond are willing to debate this in Parliament and it was encouraging to see Prime Minister David Cameron get some push-back for his stance supporting a strike against Syria. President Obama seems reluctant to present his case to Congress, possibly because he knows he would get push-back from both parties (even though Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi seems to support a strike against Syria). Obama seems hell-bent for leather to fire off a couple of missiles at Syria, regardless of whether the Allies participate, regardless of what the UN weapons inspectors ultimately conclude, regardless of the consequences for Israel and the security of the United States and the world.

PBS News Hour host Judy Woodruff asks the $64 question: "Mr. President, with all due respect, what would this accomplish?" http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec13/obama_08-28.html

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 10:21 AM

So McGrath,in view of your failure to provide the forum with an example of an "Islamophobic rant" that you have, by implication, accused me of having made, I would suggest that an apology is in order, that is if you are man enough to admit you were wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 13 - 10:04 AM

When we have as much information as we can hope to get about what happened is the time to begin to decide what can be done that will reduce the chance of it happening again. Only then, and not till then.