"I don't want Syria to become another Iraq"

There were and the materials to product more. Some most likely went to Syria and could be part of the arsenal being used now. But there is no doubt Saddam had chemical weapons he had used them and UNSCOM cataloged what he had during the first round of inspections. All of them were never destroyed or accounted for. We don't know to this day what happened to all of them. We found some he had tried to hide away and had deteriorated. We found his cache's of precursor chemicals deadly and usable in their own right and the chemical weapons shells to use them. And once the sanctions were lifted he would have rearmed himself in short order. Do you really think the threat he posed vis-a-vis WMD began and ended with the relatively small amount UNSCOM was trying to account for?

 

Unfortunately it is not. In Iraq there was one leader and that is who posed the threat. Iraq was not in a civil war. All we had to do was remove Saddam and then keep the parties separate and get a new government in place and then hold elections. We did that. Syria has become a mess because we didn't act earlier and Obama is a directionless ship when it domes to foreign policy, feckless and without courage.

 

What a load of (*)(*)(*)(*). Done something earlier? Like what invasion? I imagine you would manufacture some more outrage over that as well.

 

Support the military removing Assad, show more support for the people, not call Assad a reformer and Hillary Clinton did, and the left wants her to be President. Shown so leadership and foresight. What they have and haven't done has turned into a disaster now.

Tell me if Obama say she will use or does use military action without Congressional approval will you oppose him?

 

Depends on the scale of action.

 

If he uses military force without Congressional approval will you oppose that action and Obama? If he just makes a bandaid strike you WOULD support that? A strike of no consequence is what you would support?

And how about the former Secretary of State who wants to become President?
"CNSNews.com) – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday drew a contrast between Syrian President Bashir Assad and his late father and predecessor, and said U.S. lawmakers who recently have visited Damascus regarded him as a “reformer.”

She made the startling comment while explaining why the United States will not intervene on behalf of Syrian civilians revolting against the regime as it has done in the case of Libya. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/syrian-president-assad-regarded-reformer-clinton-says#sthash.ggb1785n.dpuf"

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. won’t enter into the internal conflict in Syria the way it has in Libya.

“No,” Clinton said, when asked on the CBS “Face the Nation” program if the U.S. would intervene in Syria’s unrest. Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s security forces clashed with protesters in several cities yesterday after his promises of freedoms and pay increases failed to prevent dissent from spreading across the country.

Clinton said the elements that led to intervention in Libya — international condemnation, an Arab League call for action, a United Nations Security Council resolution — are “not going to happen” with Syria, in part because members of the U.S. Congress from both parties say they believe Assad is “a reformer.”

- See more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ler-assad-is-a-reformer/#sthash.VqZmhqPx.dpuf

Has she disqualified herself with this total misreading along with here screaming Benghazi doesn't matter?

 

Would a monkey with a live grenade realize that its putting its own life and lives around it in danger?

 

Well, it kinda will. Face it, when we disarm Assad by blowing up all his stuff in the next couple of days, his forces will be going head to head with hardened Jihadis with the same weapons. It will be a fair fight.

All this talk about Syria attacking Israel is silly. Attack with what? Are they gonna throw rocks? My guess is Assads boys will be choking on the fumes of his blown up poison gas supplies and not in much of a condition to walk, much less attack anyone. Iran can attack Israel if it makes them feel better. We don't care and are going to blow up Syrias weapons and infrastructure anyway without putting a single soldier on the ground, using missles and heavily armed drones.

Its a new world and a new way to make war: Killer Robot Drones and Missiles versus People. I would practice running and covering myself with mud so as to mask a human's heat signature if I were them.

 

Right, and all the people that were against the Iraq war that voted for Obama/Bush are keeping silent on this one. They wont dare say a word against this war. I remember the endless attacks on Bush for the Iraq war and I agreed with them. And this POS ran his campaign on attacking his opponents for supporting the Iraq war. He won't even go there, because he knows he won't get votes.. But still, all of the liberal senators that were supposed to be against war, are not standing up and saying one word.

They are all hypocrites, worse than the republicans, because they don't have the strength of their convictions. They are cowards and hypocrites.

 

We will see about that. If USA attacks, the whole world will be on fire. Russia + China will arm Assad even more, I can promise you that. Syrians are fighting for their survival, it will be a fight till the last bullet and till the end.

 

Very good post, I wonder if you will get an answer. The longer Barack is in office it just goes to show what he really is, another war hawk, part of the military industrial complex. There were never any chemical weapons used by Assad. It is Iraq, all over again. Hillary has lost all cred after Benghazi, she is scum, and can shut her lying mouth.

 

No.

 

The version of developing events in syria as presented by the us administration and its preferred media cannot be taken at its face value as long as incriminating incidents like this one come to surface. David goulding, an insider british official previously sent emails in 2012 that were intercepted, where he noted that washington approved qatar's plan to simulate a chemical attackin syriathatwould then be blamed ob assad.

 

Another crap post. I suspect you have evidence of this?

 

I would say it depends greatly on what Syrians you are talking about, because the ones that were recognized by the Arab league as formal Syrian reps - will be shedding tears of joy at a western strike on Assad forces.

 

A small bit of news for our foreign posters: Hillary hasn't been our Secretary of State for some time now.

 

It's fine to slaughter women and children out picking berries with drones but don't dare try to do do it in a chemical way!

 

I've written to my Senator asking her to do the best she can to keep the USA out of this. There are no good guys here. Worse, I worry about stuff like this: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ow-hes-fighting-on-alqaidas-side-8786680.html

USA posters: Please write your representatives and tell them to keep out of this. There will only be losers, no winners.

 

If they are picking berries along the fence of an air base, yeah, they could get hit. Don't play in traffic and you don't have to worry about getting hit by a bus.

Smart countries locate military bases away from civilians. Dumb people locate military bases right in the middle of population centers so that lots of their people get blown to bits when the bases are attacked. Western countries have no regard for human shields. We find them to be a joke and no impedance. We slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Japanese because they were stupid and located their military factories and bases right in the middle of populous cities.

 

Here's the thinking your leaders should go through:

• Has the [Syrian] state directly and purposefully aggressed against the United States?
• If yes, does it appear that this is likely to reoccur?
• If yes, would we lose less people through war than through doing nothing?
• If yes, petition Congress for a declaration of war.
• If Congress approves the motion, get rid of the threat, either through diplomacy or retaliatory force.
• If any of these conditions are not met, do nothing.
  • 
    
    For all cases. That includes Iraq, Vietnam, that includes any future war with Iran or anyone else.

 

I see....so if the United States uses a weapon purposefully developed to minimize collateral damage but mistakenly takes out a couple people that were unintended....it is somehow the same (or worse), than killing hundreds on purpose who were intentionally targeted arbitrarily with weaponry purposefully designed to inflict great suffering and death.

One is left to wonder what reasoning is in use here...as it makes no logical sense.

 

I hold no objection to what you've posted regarding Wikileaks. It doesn't surprise me that our government has been training rebels against Assad. We've done a lot of similar things against Iran and the Soviets.

All I'm saying is that the other link you posted was from a nutjob blogger. Try to steer clear of those, because it undermines the credibility of the points you made.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree, although we can't really harp on anyone using chemical weapons, since we've used them in places like Iraq.

 

Yes, we should steer clear of the biggest "nut jobs" and their Weapons of Mass Deception, WMD's, such as all or most US news media.

 

A lot of Western media is crap too. I've never said otherwise.

 

Thank You, Serfin' USA. Wasn't directing my comment towards you personally.