General Discussion

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

28. BushInc is a subsidiary of PNAC inc

Thu Sep 5, 2013, 11:31 AM

Sep 2013

And if you think this is only about WMDs I have the Island of Manhattan for sale.

Regardless, we launch, we will be in breach of International law. So, how does our breaking Int Law make this better?

And yes, the Arab spring is part of this, it also changed SA, who has offered to pay the bills. Why do you think the Saudis are willing to pay for this? (It's about the spice)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

87 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A significant achievement of the human race: It succeeded in banning chemical weapons. [View all] blm Sep 2013 OP

If we weren't totally selective about who we hold accountable for using them... NuclearDem Sep 2013 #1

Who has gotten away with using them recently? N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Sep 2013 #2

The United States Octafish Sep 2013 #3

Are you sure you're not confusing your international laws? Donald Ian Rankin Sep 2013 #18

Depends on how recent we're talking. NuclearDem Sep 2013 #4

The US still hasn't gotten rid of its own stockpile of VX gas. eom leveymg Sep 2013 #51

Veteran's Day Poppy Octafish Sep 2013 #5

I will not tell you it's not equally enforced. nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #6

So it is best to give up on it altogether? blm Sep 2013 #8

Well, given Syria is not a signatory nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #11

nadin...do you really think I don't know the gory details of Iraq/Iran blm Sep 2013 #20

Why this then? polly7 Sep 2013 #22

That report appears to be incredibly skewed. blm Sep 2013 #31

Of course it does. I'll just take your word for it ... polly7 Sep 2013 #32

I told you how it appears to me. blm Sep 2013 #39

BushInc is a subsidiary of PNAC inc nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #28

I didn't say that, nadin. I am well aware of the historic details here blm Sep 2013 #35

I am sorry, this is not just about WMDs nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #38

You can't change the FACTS, nadin. You did learn of greater crimes blm Sep 2013 #41

You are right, we can't change the facts nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #59

I never said that it was ONLY about chemical attacks. You claimed that. blm Sep 2013 #69

I will put it to you this way nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #77

I have never trusted Obama implicitly and have noted his weaknesses blm Sep 2013 #81

Now if this was not so tragic nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #87

Let me know when the human race whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #7

So it is best to give up on the bans we DO have altogether? blm Sep 2013 #10

No, it's best to enforce them judiciously and not to use them as an excuse commit other atrocities. whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #12

well said. cali Sep 2013 #15

Explain: 'enforce them judiciously' blm Sep 2013 #17

Well, our "enforcement" in this case whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #23

That's key. and would go back to the ban. Your OP Precisely Sep 2013 #26

When did it become an 'excuse to commit atrocities' blm Sep 2013 #43

That all sounds good Precisely Sep 2013 #46

Why do you assume its faith and not reason? Ever read the BCCI Report? blm Sep 2013 #50

I'm sorry. I meant it affirmatively. Precisely Sep 2013 #65

The treaty does not empower the US to act in retaliation, in fact is specifically leaves Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #33

From all of your posts on the subject TM99 Sep 2013 #9

I take very seriously the entirety of the circumstances involved. blm Sep 2013 #14

This is not about one man Precisely Sep 2013 #34

Then I am sorry but you are TM99 Sep 2013 #37

I didn't say that - you want to believe I did. blm Sep 2013 #53

You can't even realize that your rebuttal TM99 Sep 2013 #61

I will continue to repeat what I know because so many are repeating lies blm Sep 2013 #72

You are more than welcome to wash, rinse and repeat daily. TM99 Sep 2013 #80

I already proved numerous times that is not true. blm Sep 2013 #85

Yes Precisely Sep 2013 #29

should all arms control KT2000 Sep 2013 #36

Straw man, and you know it. TM99 Sep 2013 #40

not a straw man KT2000 Sep 2013 #42

Of course, it is worthwhile to agree to ban certain weapons. TM99 Sep 2013 #44

my first choice KT2000 Sep 2013 #47

Do you even acknowledge that diplomatic solutions were TRIED for blm Sep 2013 #57

This message was self-deleted by its author KT2000 Sep 2013 #60

Just answered in another reply. TM99 Sep 2013 #62

You assume Kerry is to blame and Assad's mental state post-ArabSpring is intact. blm Sep 2013 #67

Seriously, TM99 Sep 2013 #68

That's horsepoo - I developed my own views of Syria through research blm Sep 2013 #70

How do you know to what degree of research I have done on Syria? TM99 Sep 2013 #71

Instead some people here want the US to join the indifference blm Sep 2013 #56

The biggest straw man argument now is that this is just like Iraq. blm Sep 2013 #55

A simple question that I know you will avoid is this, TM99 Sep 2013 #64

No. But, I am not going to pretend there isn't more just because blm Sep 2013 #73

Your powers of projection are astounding. TM99 Sep 2013 #76

I already said No. The ? was NOT avoided. blm Sep 2013 #82

It hasn't been kept in place anymore than the conventions against genocide have cali Sep 2013 #13

Why do you need to pretend I claimed that Owen's poem was the first? blm Sep 2013 #16

not pretending anything, dear. cali Sep 2013 #25

That's the 'impression' you wanted to give yourself. I gave you no cause. blm Sep 2013 #48

Lysistrata! Precisely Sep 2013 #30

It did? WilliamPitt Sep 2013 #19

Take Britain to court. But, why pretend Geneva ban isn't worth saving? blm Sep 2013 #21

Which court? WilliamPitt Sep 2013 #24

I'm not defending Britain. They deserve to be exposed at The Hague. blm Sep 2013 #45

Christ, that was a hundred years ago... malthaussen Sep 2013 #27

I know -- next year will mark a century since the Great War. No more living persons anneboleyn Sep 2013 #49

WWI is an especially glaring example of the futility of war... malthaussen Sep 2013 #52

Why is bombing Syria the only - Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2013 #54

If it really was about just wanting to attack Syria we'd have done blm Sep 2013 #58

Everyone agrees that chem weapons should not be used LittleBlue Sep 2013 #63

Pro-accountability doesn't have to be pro-war. blm Sep 2013 #66

Obviously, the world doesn't care as much as you claim. reformist2 Sep 2013 #74

The world did THEN. Now more people want to join the ranks blm Sep 2013 #75

So how are you going to secure those chemical weapons, blm? Union Scribe Sep 2013 #78

That's the Pentagon's job. blm Sep 2013 #83

Stop cramming words in my mouth and answer Union Scribe Sep 2013 #84

I can't do the Pentagon's job of planning surgical strikes and blm Sep 2013 #86

Tell that to the people of Vietnam . . . markpkessinger Sep 2013 #79