Data from U.N. report, report on.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Data from U.N. report, report on.

    Looks like a stalemate.

    In global politics anyway


    http://www.france24.com/en/20130918-syria-gives-russia-evidence-rebels-behind-chem-attack

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Data from U.N. report, report on.

    I think that I'd go with the UN over Syria/Russia on this one. Not that I particularly trust the UN at all...

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Data from U.N. report, report on.

    Really, who cares? It is not worth the risk to go after them no matter who used them. 

    But, don't you find it a bit disconcerting that we need an investigation of this sort to make sure that the terrorists WE ARE SUPPORTING are not the ones that used them?

    The estimates are from several sources that the "Rebels" are at least 50% extremists like Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, etc. These groups have already been caught manufacturing chemical weapons in Iraq. They were known to have taken over Syrian government stockpiles too. 

    Do you think we might want to question what the heck we are doing over there? What are we going to do if the rebels are caught using chemical weapons?? 

    What a clusterfork. Nice job Barry!

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Data from U.N. report, report on.

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    Really, who cares? It is not worth the risk to go after them no matter who used them.

    But, don't you find it a bit disconcerting that we need an investigation of this sort to make sure that the terrorists WE ARE SUPPORTING are not the ones that used them?

    The estimates are from several sources that the "Rebels" are at least 50% extremists like Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, etc. These groups have already been caught manufacturing chemical weapons in Iraq. They were known to have taken over Syrian government stockpiles too. 

    Do you think we might want to question what the heck we are doing over there? What are we going to do if the rebels are caught using chemical weapons?? 

    What a clusterfork. Nice job Barry!

     



    Arming the terrorists is apparently important enough for Obama to issue an executive order waiving the law that prohibits it.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-waives-ban-on-arming-terrorists-to-allow-aid-to-syrian-opposition/article/2535885

    Following the law is such an irritant to Obama's rule.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Data from U.N. report, report on.

    There's been another wrinkle to the Syrian situation. I've read that the Islamists, most of whom are outsiders, are now openly fighting some of the original Syrian rebel groups. If that's true I'd have no problem whatsoever supporting those folks.

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Data from U.N. report, report on.

    Nobody ever said the rebel groups were monolithic.  

    Not all of them are terrorists, despite what the Assad regime (and certain hawks) say.

     

    Hence the need to support the 'right' rebels, whomever they're deemed to be...a determination that took a long time, indeed.

     

     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Data from U.N. report, report on.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]Really, who cares? It is not worth the risk to go after them no matter who used them.



    Then hope the WMD destruction deal pans out, and at least some of their weapons are destroyed.

     

    Of course, someone might care for another reason: memories of the persons who now oppose Obama previously saying "well, Iraq hasn't used WMDs since the late 80s (when Reagan helped them to use chemical weapons), but Iraq has WMDs so let's invade without making sure the intelligence is accurate."

    Hubris, hypo...I don't know...one or more of the those h-words seems to apply.

     

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    But, don't you find it a bit disconcerting that we need an investigation of this sort to make sure that the terrorists WE ARE SUPPORTING are not the ones that used them?

    The estimates are from several sources that the "Rebels" are at least 50% extremists like Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, etc. These groups have already been caught manufacturing chemical weapons in Iraq. They were known to have taken over Syrian government stockpiles too. 

    Do you think we might want to question what the heck we are doing over there? What are we going to do if the rebels are caught using chemical weapons?? 

    What a clusterfork. Nice job Barry!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    A bit? I think it's abominably stupid that we've started giving weapons to Idris considering the proven ties with Al Queda.

     

    That, however, is completely distinct from the issue of whether it is ever worth deterring WMD use and whether it is or is not in our interest if Syria loses some of its chemical capabilities.

     

     

     

    It's a complex set of issues and neither "yay Obama 100%" or "boo Obama 100%" is a fair assessment.

    [/QUOTE]

    WMD was not the only reason to invade Iraq. In retrospect, the whole thing was a mistake and could have been handled far differently with or without WMD.

    Ironically, as it is, the terrorists have been caught manufacturing chemical weapons in Iraq. Isuspect they were not caught the first and only time they made them either.

    So I would say that I agree Obama is neither 100% right or wrong. I think the diplomatic approach in Syria is far preferable to any military attack. Like Bush and Iraq, the execution leaves much to be desired. 

    The likelihood of any successful outcome with WMD in Syria is nil until the civil war is over. And that is if the side that wins cooperates. WHat sense does it make to do a deal with Syria/Russia and then support the rebels trying to oust Assad??? Seems to be contradictory.

    And now the Syrians are claiming evidence that the rebels conducted the gas attack. OK, I don't believe them or the Russians - so why would I trust any deal that's made with them. Of course you can do the deal and try to monitor it, but if they are inherently dishonest then the WMD are already on the move to be secreted for future use.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share