its not like there wasn't already UN resolutions banning chemical weapons. its not like they weren't warned before. and its not like we invaded Syria. if there is to be a ground war, I would want to see approval from congress, a coalition of NATO allies, and UAE plans for the aftermath.
Same thing.* I'm not saying at all to trust their claims just because they say so. It's a line of inquiry, something to look into and attempt to verify so as to corroborate or dispel those claims. I'm fully willing to believe that Assad is capable of being so stupid as to use a chem attack, but I don't know that he did and there are multiple lines to follow through on to confirm it, including the one you mentioned about whether or not the bomber was even capable of deploying such a weapon. As you, I, and others have pointed out there are plenty of viable suspects. *(I mean, technically, no, they aren't the same thing, but they are both off-shoots of Al-Qaeda, and have very similar ideologies. If they aren't working together it's likely more due to their leaderships not wanting to share power more than anything else.)
I think he was referring more to the initial attack against Iraq, thus referencing 1990 instead of the state Iraq was in after the Kuwait thing. I could be wrong. Otherwise you're absolutely correct, and Iraq wasn't being aggressive against other nations during the Bush Jr. regime, that I recall (unlike prior to that).
United States, Russia, and China supply most of the arms around the world. Never said I agree with any of that and we are too blame for a lot that goes on, but let's not pretend it's only America.
wait what? when did assad use a chem attack? which incident are you referring to? this is awkward. I currently live in northern Lebanon. I visit Syria at least a couple of times every month. I come into contact with Syrians on a daily basis. Where did you come across this misinformation?
Exactly 4,800 Americans died where were our NATO allies again, maybe Britain but that's probably it. We have to have the strongest army in the world because were also covering for everyone in NATO, sure let us cut our funding a ton like our NATO allies have and see what happens to the world. Do I agree that we should spend that much on War, absolutely not, but then again who else has a strong military and is willing to put their people to the front, certainly not anyone in NATO. If America said were done protecting our NATO allies tomorrow what do you think would happen to all of Europe ? 1990 the chemical weapons were found, we know they had them, you think they just got rid of them ? Also a lot of reports say that chemical weapons were moved from Iraq to Syria when we came looking, whether this is credible or not is yet to be determined.
Everyone on these forums talks about being humane towards the Syrian refugees, so I suppose the United States was supposed to sit back and chill while those Syrians were being attacked by chemical weapons ? Why didn't our NATO allies with all their talk of helping people do something about it, or does helping those Syrians not matter because you guys might have to actually do something ? Also curious if people believe we should sit back and watch the North Korean dictator build nuclear missiles, or if NATO planned on doing anything about that also or should America handle it again ?
I never have? I'm just saying that we've essentially been stuck in a cycle of: support a group/regime as a proxy, go in, knock it down, support a new proxy, knock it down, over and over again. I'd rather we not be involved in that crap. The US isn't the only nation to do it of course (and I've pointed out that multiple times in this discussion), but I've never been a fan of appealing to peer pressure for this sort of thing. Because it risks further external pressure and fueling further rebellion against his regime to use it when he's already winning. We've been over this. It is strategically asinine, and has no solid tactical or political merit. Therefore, it is stupid.
not trying to mock anyone but imo it is pointless to discuss this topic people who have never set foot in Syria attempt to discuss the political situation and recent events in Syria. people unknowingly buy too much into misinformation and half truths. This can result into too many "I think or I feel statements" that get us no where. I've said this before and i'll say it again. If you really want to know what happens in Syria, visit Syria or at least a neighboring region. Do your own independent research. information is more accurate the closer you are to the origin of events. I don't understand why people choose to get info about Syria from distant sources derived from countries that are ruled by those who are enemies of Syria. Assad did not chem his own people. To say that he did is just nonsense.
I agree I said on the previous page it doesn't make sense for him to do that, I do believe has has chemical weapons but I don't think it was him. I've been to Egypt and have no will to ever go to the Middle East for anything ever again.
Well this missile attack is actually a trade mark move from the Clinton Era. He use 52 missiles to attack and airstrip that was operational less than 24 hours later similar to the safe and expensive attacks Clinton did to numerous middle east nations. Bush Jr had a great quote saying "never again will I use a 2 million dollar missile to blow up a tent and kill a camel" well during the trump Era I guess that will be 60 million to not even disable an air strip....
well ive set foot in America. in fact, I was actually in America the day Trump ordered the attack. Ive even spoken to Americans. So if anyone wants to know the TRUTH about it all. just ask me. cuz like, I was in America that day so.....
that's nothing, i was in dc that day and i can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that you can't trust what anyone not from dc is saying about dc especially anti-governmental sources like fox, cnn, huffpo, who all really just want to tear trump downn
you mean the rebels will rebel harder? and the external pressure which hasn't stopped him before and of which they did not expect a missile attack from was a foreseeable detterant? I don't think either Assad nor his intended targets see themselves as being part of the same group. to say that they do is just nonsense?
Third report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism http://undocs.org/S/2016/738 Wikipedia has a map with clicky bits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Incidents Sarin in: Khan al-Asal (19 March 2013) Saraqib (29 April 2013) Ghouta (21 August 2013) Jobar (24 August 2013) Ashrafiyat Sahnaya (25 August 2013). Chlorine barrel bombs in(and perhaps more): Talmenes in April 2014 Sarmin in March 2015 ISIS also used mustard gas artillery shells in Marea in August 2015. you live in lebanon and vissit Syria so presumably you only vissit goverment held areas far away from the fighting. I think your sources may be influenced by bias.
Ok travel options are limited but can you blame me? one wrong turn and it can cost me my head. Let me put it this way, entering any non gov territory is instant death. I hope you dont expect me to conduct an interview with an ISIS member.. will that decrease the bias? ive already been to 2 out of the 5 you listed. I am also going on a trip in a few days. I can't confirm the chem attacks by assad. Seems I just don't hear the same stories you do. Your sources are either making stuff up or blaming Assad for an atrocity that was actually carried out by ISIS. and you are telling me about bias? At least I am trying to view things from a different perspective. At least I have been to Syria. I am doing more than just sitting behind a pc discussing politics of a region some thousands of miles away. keep in mind there is no mass media machine in Syria or Lebanon. There is no bullshit compared to western countries. I know what it is like, I used to live in MA. over here, when stuff happens, you immediately hear about it and the news is clean. news travels fast. about 5-6m registered people in Lebanon. ~19 m in Syria (and dropping). very small pops compared to USA. it is a very small world over here. lets not overcomplicate things. And all this demonizing assad? I don't get it. if he is so evil, how come I am still alive. What I find to be most frustrating is discussing something that is already common knowledge in my region. A friend sent me live footage of the recent gas event. I don't mind emailing it to you. let me know. I can't post it on the forums since it is very graphic. before I go. also in the video, you can see a Syrian civil defense workers helping the people. So Assad uses sarin on civilians (women, children, elderly included) and then dispatches aid? doesn't add up. Regardless, I'm done with this thread. believe what you want.
im not saying he is evil or demonizing him. I just think it is likely that he has used chemical weapons. based on the evidence available. so have the rebels (based on rebel sources claiming a commander used a forbidden/illegal weapon even) so has ISIS. I am just trying to tell people here that to discount the possibility of it having been the Syrian goverment this time based on a retrospective cost/benefit analysis of the results will inevitably be slanted to the cost side. hindsight being 20/20. but the decision to carry out the attack would not have been made in the same manner. that is not to rule out the possibility of it having been a normal airstrike on a weapons depot that turned out to be storing chemical weapons. as claimed by the goverment. yes, I see you are 94 places below my country in the free press index. and there are 11 million more people in my country. why bring the USA into this, if anything they will bring themselves into things.
https://twitter.com/GioZane/status/851593074627272704 Lmao. They aren't even trying anymore. Of course this is old news to anyone with half a brain. Also @Lop it doesn't matter to these people that Assad and the Syrian army are literally preventing the country from a total collapse. You write that venturing outside of government areas can be potentially fatal. But they don't care. Their brain has been fried by watching too much Star wars. It is more important to justify bombings in order to pretend they have a moral highground and are therefore ''good guys''. They don't care about common people or the country at all. It was the same with Lybia. A prosperous country whose leader did everything the west asked of him, including reducing his military. Got backstabbed in the back and the country is a smoking pile of rubble controlled by various gangs. But its ok because he was a so called dictator. And yet people without empathy are arguing for more and more war because they are ''good guys against bad guys'', even though it has been proven time and time again the only purpose is profit for corporate overlords. After Assad is dead, Syria in poverty and completely destroyed, with millons of people dead Ragic and Geressen will pat themselves on the back and think how everything is right in this world. Rest assured they won't be the ones going to fight. Meanwhile Yemen is starving because it is literally under siege by SA and these people don't know or care simply because it's not what their TV told them to think. Where are the American bombers??
