General Discussion

TM99

(8,352 posts)

34. I am not attacking you personally

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 01:10 PM

Sep 2013

and when I see words used in this situation constantly like 'could', 'there is no doubt', and the like, I do not see rational analysis of this situation. It is not measured, being dutifully explored and a reasoned response by those who should be doing so, the UN, are not being suggested.

Instead, it is a rush to arms and America must protect the world from Hitler, blah blah blah.

Another simple question for you as you do seem to be in support of 'punishing' Assad for his alleged use of chemical weapons. If the rebels have also allegedly used chemical weapons, whether in a large or small attack, why is that OK? Why are we not up in arms about their usage of it? Why are we going to assist them and 'attack' Assad?

Again, there are way to many incongruencies and inconsistencies in most people's positions here and in the administration as a whole with regards to this delicate and tragic civil war.

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