Posted on 04/26/2013 9:07:44 AM PDT by JohnPDuncan
CBC out of Canada reports unnamed Syrian officials speaking to the Associated Press denying the use of chemical weapons against foreign jihadist 'rebels' within the country that seemed to surface yesterday and that were repeated by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.
The report also quotes a Syrian lawmaker Sharif Shehadeh:
Shehadeh called the U.S. claims "lies" and likened them to false accusations that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction — a claim U.S. policymakers had used to justify the invasion of that country in 2003.
"What is being designed for Syria now is similar to what happened in Iraq when Colin Powell lied in the Security Council and said Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction prior to the U.S. invasion and occupation of that country," he said.
Meanwhile Israeli officials are calling for the US to respond to the now debunked assertion that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons:
"I think the U.S., as the leader of the Western world, should lead the efforts with our partners in Europe and Israel and to take action with what we're seeing happening today in Syria," Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon told CNN.
The question remains why Israel is so eager to see the collapse of the Assad regime. Do they believe they can control whatever Muslim Brotherhood puppet replaces him? If so this is extremely naive thinking from our Israeli friends as it would no doubt signal the start of an even longer and more protracted civil war. Also the evidence from Egypt suggests that when the Muslim Brotherhood takes control they immediately persecute Christians, re-write laws along fundamentalist religious grounds and cause political and social unrest.
I wouldn’t support the dictators myself (except Mubarak whom we owed), but I might have sent some attaboys to Russia if they supported them...
Mostly, we should have just sat back and popped popcorn.
But you ARE a liar, as has been shown.
You also moved the goal posts, went off on tangents.
“I’m a conservative because I like Robert Taft!”
When shown that yes indeed Iraq had chemical weapons you changed your position to be ‘I don’t care’.
Are you normally a liar or do you just play one on TV?
WMD’s are Obama’s best reason to send troops. I don’t believe Obama.
My position is well known and i think a debate about WMDs and whether he had them or not is pointless.
I could probably pull up reems of evidence saying he didn’t have them
And even if he did I wouldnt have supported the invasion. Senator Taft didnt support entry into WW2 until Pearl Harbor and that’s a position I agree with.
You are the one that stated there were none.
My position is philosophical: If not attacked then no war.
You are entitled to believe that; and have stated that- but your belief has nothing to do with whether or not certain things are or not happening or have happened.
I’m not getting involved in “did he or didnt he” have WMDs.
Then why did you already involve yourself by stating there were no WMDs in Iraq?
The soviets once had 10,000 nukes pointed at US cities but Russia or its satellites states were not invaded.
Yes I lived through the Cold War and do remember it, whether or not we should have or should not have invaded Russia has nothing to do with the issues in Syria. Believe me Syria is not comparable to the Russia of Cold War days.
Let me ask you a serious question Dark, should we have invaded Russia because they had lots of WMDs?
This makes no sense to me.
I’m not arguing with you just trying to understand your position better.
Try Googling on something to the effect of “ Iraq Kurds Gas”. So, ya figure all those folks died laughing?
“My position is well known and i think a debate about WMDs and whether he had them or not is pointless.”
So just because your position is wrong and you were proven wrong, it is pointless.
Yeah, that’s a good debate tactic.
Works so well for the left.
If you were quoting someone else you might try using quotation marks. Otherwise it reads as a statement of yours.
I think it’s pretty pointless as evidenced by this thread to get involved in the “did or didnt he” debate about WMDs when my position is strictly philosophical i.e im reluctant to go to war unless explicitly attacked.
Recall a little thing called the Cold War?
Bunch of people died fighting little proxy battles in places you’ll never see or hear about.
And guess who is still here?
Not the Soviet Union.
Though the left in this country is trying to inject life back into that old beast.
“My position is strictly philosophical”
Translation: It’s vaporous BS and I don’t care about facts.
My position is that of Mr. Republican, Robert Taft.
He was not a leftist or considered one and neither am I.
There are lots of Republicans who are reluctant to go to war unless there is an attack to justify it.
We may not be in the majority but that doesn’t we should be kicked out the party, belittled, called names, ridiculed, excluded and made fun of.
He was also a racist.
Do you agree with that position of his as well?
What’s your evidence for that?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3012724/posts?q=1&;page=154#150
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3012724/posts?page=153#153
“My position is strictly philosophical!”
“My position is that of Mr. Republican, Robert Taft.”
Make up your mind Sybil.
Either your position is that of an isolationist racist, or that of vaporous BS and you don’t care about facts as you stated in post 126
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3012724/posts?page=126#126
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3012724/posts?page=104#104
Respond to Mnehrings post 104 first before asking me that.
I dont need to respond. I think Taft was a statesman and speaks for himself.
Obviously as a limited government conservative I dont support everything he did but he’s closest to what i identify with as a Republican especially with regards to foreign policy.
“I dont need to respond.”
Than I shall not tell you either.
If he uttered anything racist I would disagree with that too but i’ve not seen any evidence of that.
But whatever... he’s considered a statesman and is the sort of Republican I admire.
Also liked Coolidge, Reagan, Goldwater, Eisenhower.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.