General Discussion

pnwmom

(110,301 posts)

7. Thanks. n/t

Reply to BainsBane (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 01:54 AM

Sep 2013

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

48 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is is possible to have a strike targeted to Syria's fighter jets? [View all] pnwmom Sep 2013 OP

that would do far more than prevent bombs� the only way Assad's forces can move supplies is jet > KittyWampus Sep 2013 #1

Wouldn't that cause both jets and bombs to drop on their people? last1standing Sep 2013 #2

presumably poster means bombing jets on airfields. Or bombing airfields so jets have nowhere to land KittyWampus Sep 2013 #4

Yes! pnwmom Sep 2013 #8

I meant on parked fighter jets. Sorry. n/t pnwmom Sep 2013 #9

Nope. I should have asked for clarification. last1standing Sep 2013 #10

I thought we couldn't take out chemical weapons storage facilities without exposing pnwmom Sep 2013 #12

We wouldn't. That's why this isn't such a simple operation. last1standing Sep 2013 #13

then why have we been training the rebels on how to control and secure chemical weapons already? VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #15

Why indeed? last1standing Sep 2013 #16

We know that how? Because a minority of them are Al Queda? VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #17

Ok then. I see you don't want to have a serious conversation. last1standing Sep 2013 #19

OHHHH I get it.... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #20

It's unacceptable to claim there's no danger in training these groups. last1standing Sep 2013 #21

who the hell ever said that? VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #22

Now we agree on something. last1standing Sep 2013 #24

Because the rebels control territory where chemical weapons are stored? pnwmom Sep 2013 #23

Excellent ^^^ point VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #25

So the rebels control the territory where the chemical weapons TM99 Sep 2013 #27

The rebels could be controlling some territory where chemical weapons are stored pnwmom Sep 2013 #30

I am not attacking you personally TM99 Sep 2013 #34

I am completely on the fence, hoping that the UN report might help me off of it. pnwmom Sep 2013 #35

I can agree with the UN report. TM99 Sep 2013 #37

Chemical warfare has been outlawed by an international treaty signed pnwmom Sep 2013 #38

Yes, and so have TM99 Sep 2013 #39

The cluster bomb treaty only covers 83 countries at this point, and the US, China, and Russia pnwmom Sep 2013 #40

I am sorry but this is yet another TM99 Sep 2013 #41

How could the Chemical Weapons Convention have applied to our use of Agent Orange pnwmom Sep 2013 #42

How can the Chemical Weapons Convention TM99 Sep 2013 #43

It is true that that didn't bind them. That doesn't mean that they can use them pnwmom Sep 2013 #44

Nor should it, but TM99 Sep 2013 #45

I am waiting for the UN report. I'd also prefer a UN action or, better yet, pnwmom Sep 2013 #46

Let us all hope TM99 Sep 2013 #47

What I heard on the PBS Newshour BainsBane Sep 2013 #3

it'd also isolate his troops & severely limit their ability to get supplies as rebels control ground KittyWampus Sep 2013 #5

Thanks. n/t pnwmom Sep 2013 #7

But again, we see the holes in this story from day one. TM99 Sep 2013 #28

Good Points...! KoKo Sep 2013 #31

That is what will happen after the Congress passes the 'use of force' resolution Tx4obama Sep 2013 #6

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2013 #11

I think you meant for your comment to go to the person that wrote the OP. Tx4obama Sep 2013 #14

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2013 #18

Well, that's always the issue in these affairs. longship Sep 2013 #26

Sure, but... Savannahmann Sep 2013 #29

BUT the attack with the napalm-type chemical that BURNT folks was dropped from a FIGHTER JET Tx4obama Sep 2013 #48

Why do you think that's not part of the plan? brooklynite Sep 2013 #32

I realize now that it probably is. But the way people around here were talking pnwmom Sep 2013 #33

Quite possible... sarisataka Sep 2013 #36