PHOTO: Why we should punish the use of chemical weapons...

[yurbud]

Starting with our own war criminals. Those who ordered two out of three of those are still alive, free, and unindicted.

Shouldn't we take the plank out of our own eye before we take the speck out of Syria's?

If they don't care enough to punish those, what are the chances that the use of particular weapons is why they are itching to enter the war in Syria they already funded well before this chemical attack?

NOTE: This would be a good one to send your senators and representative.

[msongs]

1. watch out, you might be droned nt

[Aerows]

2. The hypocrites

will tell you it is different. The people that give a damn know there is none.

[yurbud]

3. the difference is they profited from war crimes in Iraq not from Assad's.

[Aerows]

5. And a mouse would starve

on that difference.

[kenny blankenship]

4. And when we go to war against Syria we will threaten them as we did Iraq

with nuclear annihilation, just in case they had any ideas of fighting back.

[annm4peace]

6. those missiles are made with depleted uranium

so we will be raining down chemical weapons in the DU dust.

[Dragonfli]

7. I was trying to explain this to a poster earlier that felt we must act because of dead children

The poster made the argument it was our duty

What is our duty to the people of the world? Are we so damaged by the lies from Bush, et. al, that we are taking a superficial view of Syria and willing to turn a blind eye to the use of WMDs?

Are we sticking our heads in the sand and abrogating our responsibility?

When another poster explained

So I guess we could start bombing a whole lot of the world, including ourselves. We are guilty of proliferating a genocidal weapon of cancer-causing radiation with all the Depleted Uranium that our government used in Serbia and Iraq, and is still using in Afghanistan. Unlike sarin, Depleted Uranium will still be causing health problems a hundred years from now.

Or are illegal weapons only worthy of revenge-style actions when utilized by other nations?

The poster answered with what appeared to be complete denial

But, there are differences. There are differences between creating, selling bullets and shooting them into a young child. We all know that difference.

Where is the line? I guess that is the question we are debating right now--at what point will we stand up and say to the Syrian government, "Enough?"

I tried to explain, but I doubt it made any difference

I'm afraid you don't understand what we have done, we've actually USED White Phosphorous and DU

We've used it on many thousands, not hundreds of men women and children, we also kill children all the time by drone because
they are near someone that someone thinks might be exhibiting behavior that could indicate he is a terrorist (AKA signature strikes), or sometimes because a child is among parents that see someone hurt after a wedding party or something was blown up and try to help. why? Because drone operators get bonus points for picking off first responders (a little tactic we copied from Hezbollah that we re-branded "double tap" strikes).

We should post pictures of these children dead from our weapons and compare numbers, perhaps a decent man will see those pictures of the victims of our WMD and "be moved" to DO SOMETHING to show the monsters responsible that there is a line that was crossed and someone has to deter such atrocities, somehow, perhaps by doing something really stupid like blowing up more people, many of which will be innocent American children, why? Because somehow more killing will lead to the end of killing or something and more civilian deaths will show those maniacs what for, damn it.

Define hypocrisy and then thank what ever mythical being you thank that no one is strong enough to try to play Judge Dredd with us the way we are constantly fantasizing about actually being a self appointed Judge Dredd to the world. Often committing atrocities that dwarf even that evil shit Assad in the process because we have some insane idea that the way to help people that are being killed is to blow up, maim, burn to the bone with phosphorous, spread depleted uranium around from our shells with the added bonus of poisoning multiple generations of children and generally just bomb the shit out of them killing civilians the entire time. Why do we think of such things as "humanitarian actions" anyway?

So..... the proposal is to:

"Punish" Assad for killing his people by killing more of his people,
because we have some sort of "moral high ground" and
more death will help the "dead children" (how it will help is quite unclear)
even though that "high ground" is really a mountain of corpses, many of them children we have killed in the process of being "so moral".

Really?

If you buy that line of reasoning then you are insane, hypnotized, or delusional because such rationalizations are insultingly absurd no matter how eloquently you spread the propaganda.

How people fall for it astonishes me.

We have done and do far more than "manufacture bullets" as you put it, we build mountains of dead civilians many of which are children so where DO YOU draw the line? And just how will war help the children when many more will die due to it?

Full context and original post post

[yurbud]

11. we could larger war crimes without killing anyone

[yurbud]

12. it's clear that their instructions don't include responding to arguments

They just have to post variations of the same emotional appeals over and over.

[Iliyah]

8. Chemical use was wrong, my daddy has told me

a Marine Veteran from the Vietnam War. Chemical weapons of any kind is prohibited and was signed by majority of the countries in the world since 1973. The use of chemical weapons used now and I believe by the Syrian government on its people just opens the door for future use by other countries and by doing will give credence for other countries to store them and again instead of worrying about bombs the countries will worry about chemical warfare - and the use of airborne chemicals.

The use of an airborne chemical that can travel across land and oceans. Some will say boo hoo WMD BS again, and I'll say nope its very real. So look above again and calculate that 100 times across the many countries.

Oh by the way the RWers have embraced Putin, and most of them are wishing for domesday. Propaganda is running rampant stating the US wanting a war. I guess the gassing of Syrians - chemical weapons - the world don't care until it happens to them.

[Tx4obama]

10. +100 n/t

[Dragonfli]

13. We need to send a message, to any evil countries that use chemicals like white phosphorous and D.U,

I say we need to bomb these countries because they will not understand any other language, we should start by posting pictures of the tragic victims in places like Fallujah and Palestine, then strategically target military bases and air support facilities within their borders in order to reduce their ability to commit such atrocities while the UN turns a blind eye!

The two countries that use chemicals that result in horrible deaths the most (far more than Syria) and have the highest civilian death tolls due to such use luckily happen to be countries we have a great deal of intel on.

We know exactly where to strike in the United States and Israel to punish them for setting an example that "it is OK to use these horrible weapons of chemical warfare that burn victims flesh to the bone and cause horrible deformities to multiple generations of innocent children".

It is regrettable if any innocent US or Israeli citizens die, but they are not the targets so would merely be "regrettable" collateral damage, The US should not using them as shields by placing it's bases near residential areas the way they do.

Somehow it seems like an absurd idea now, I don't know why, same logic, same horrible deaths caused by chemicals (quite a few more even), but for some reason I think the hawks will abandon their flawless logic when the players are different ones....

[idwiyo]

9. k&r

[yurbud]

14. .