Posted on 08/31/2013 8:42:57 AM PDT by ReaganÜberAlles
The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people, and injured around 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians;[1][2] thousands more died of complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.[3] The incident, which has been officially defined as an act of genocide against the Kurdish people in Iraq,[4] was and still remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.[5]
Reagan did not respond.
So the new standard is we allow use of WNDs?
World Net Dailys?
I have one more
11) With privates like “Chelsea” Manning in our military, we’re likely to be laughed out of the Med.
Just to be clear, I do support going into situations like this..., if the conditions are suitable. This time they are not.
If you have an isolated Hitler killing his people, and there is an honorable resistance that is willing to live in peace with the rest of the world, then sure, send in troops to eliminate the Hitler and his cabal.
Here we have a situation where neither side is worth supporting. I think Assad as bad as he is, has shown over time, he isn’t particularly interested in taking on the West. The other side is.
So you’ve got a war criminal on one side, and you’ve got a devout anti-Western terrorist group on the other.
Who do you turn the keys to Syria over to?
Stand down.
Killing your own countrymen with chemical weapons is horrific and deserves strong action to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.
HOWEVER — it’s not entirely clear here who actually used the weapons, or who ‘the good guys’ are. There are spurious claims coming from several different directions. I certainly don’t know who or what to believe.
At one time, I would have been heavily biased towards the word of our Gov’t/intel. But I threw out that idea with the bathwater quite some time ago.
I saw yesterday that Lurch was citing some of their sources of evidence as YOUTUBE VIDEOS!!
After Benghazi, one would think that the word ‘youtube’ would be banned as an acceptable term in administration doublespeak...
NO TO BOMBING SYRIA, especially a half-hearted, token effort like we expect out of Obama.
In 1982, Assad the Elder killed between 10,000 and 40,000 of his fellow Syrians in the town of Hama in putting down a rebellion from the Muslim Brotherhood. The town was leveled by a combination of aerial bombardment and a couple weeks of artillery pounding.
The President in 1982 was Ronald Reagan and he decided that it was not in our interest to become involved.
Were the residents of Hama less dead than the ones recently attacked? I don’t think so. How has our interest changed? Is it that you can kill any number of your own citizens so long as you don’t use gas or other WMD, but once you use gas, all bets are off? That would certainly be an interesting foreign policy, but not necessary one that makes any sense.
Not just no, but hell no. Why do we need to get into this fight? On one side you have a bloodthirsty thug dictator Assad who has killed 100,000+ of his own people. On the other side, you have al-Qeada and the Muslim Brotherhood, both terrorist organizations. Except that Obama personally favors the MB, we should stay the hell out of Dodge and let these folk clean house themselves. If using chemical weapons is the reason, there are other countries in the world and region that can retaliate for whoever used the weapons (it’s not clear which side used them apparently). The Syrian citizens caught in the middle are fleeing the country in droves to proximate countries as refugees. Maybe some humanitarian aid to the refugees is a better route for the US.
We don’t have any allies in this deal to form a coalition, except that leftist weasel in France, Francois Holland, who knows squat about foreign policy and military actions, much like Obama doesn’t know crap about it either. Obama should cool his heals and go back to golf and vacations and leave the big boy stuff to the adults. His problem is his ego and his so-called “red line”. He says we’re going to take action and then he dithers and leaks plans and strategy information to the world and makes himeslf look like a fool, as well as the weakling he already is. But all he really wants to do is save face. It’s all about him, not the national security of the country. Typical Obama, its about me, myself and I.
McCain and Kerry, can you imagine all that moral authority in one place?
There will be a limp-wristed Clintonesque slap in somebody’s face and a few aspirin factories will be blown up (or worse, one of the depots where the various chemical agents are kept), and a widespread toll of civilian non-combatants will be noted and widely reported. Now, suddenly, it becomes “the Americans’ fault” so many died in Syria, and like Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, everything, EVERYTHING, that ever happened there was all on account of the presence of the US.
But somehow, none of this will ever be “Obama’s fault”. By whatever means necessary, this will be tied back to being “Bush’s fault”.
I say let them kill each other....if he had used them on another country it would be different...dead is dead..We tried and failed twice...we need to foment change in IRAN..
Napalm has a very limited impact, but it makes for a helluva show. Once it is out its effects are over. Not comparable to AO or to any WMD (NBC is a better descriptor).
The guy that is planning to authorize this all by himself, got a Nobel Peace prize for doing nothing but offering a campaign promise and is the same guy who wont let Congress or the American people get in his way to do whatever he wants. Yep we sure got "Change" Another sad chapter in the history of America.
No.
Obama will, if he can get enough surge of opinion. He is supporting our enemies if he attacks The Government there, and he seldom misses a chance to support the enemies of the United States.
However, there seem to be increasing question of who let the gas loose, and without any clear intel there, we should stay the hell out of it. If John Kerry told me he was convinced the grass was green and the sky was blue, I'd have to go out and check.
There is no clear military objective besides dog wagging, no clear goal/objective, no exit plan, and always the risk of inadvertent direct involvement with the Russians.
Blowing up a few arsenals full of WMDs won't make the local population any healthier, either.
It's just so much pecker waving to make duh-1 look like the big dog, at our expense and at the risk of our service personnel.
Of course, the idea that he'd do something like that, just to try to scatter the pile of scandals on his doorstep, occurs to me as well.
NO.
We have intervened in very few atrocities in our history. Clinton would call Yugoslavia an atrocity, but I would call that a very legitimate civil war we should have stayed out of.
Absolutely not. I don’t trust the information, the motive, nor the competence of the 0bama administration to do anything useful, except for itself.
The American public would be well advised to read up on EXACTLY WHO has been engineering and financing the rebellion to ouster of Assad for several years.
Think folks. MONEY is required to fund the opposition forces. MILLIONS.
I’ve done some reading, I know the basic nexus of power that is overseeing the rebels. It’s commonly known as “new world order”.
The seemingly rag-tag collection of terrorists and fighters on the ground are fighting under the direction of people who wear suits and meet regularly with Western politicians in Britain, France and the US. However the fighters themselves undoubtedly do not know that they are fighting on behalf of new world order. Only the key “suits” know who they are working for when they fight the Syrian government.
The suits have been talking to the US government since at least 2006. There are published newspaper articles on this, but the articles are years old. You have to actually search the web for them; use date range criteria to exclude much of the current news content or you’ll never find the old articles since they’ll typically be way far down in your search results.
It’s better to research and find out the truth...
rather than be completely ignorant of what’s really going on...
but just cheer “send in the American military to drop bombs !”
If they want to use World Net Daily to bring down Syria, I say. Okey dokey!
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.