why is the u.s. suddenly crying about the use of chemical weapons?

[bud]

i don't get it.

syria is allegedly using chemical weapons and this is supposed to be the red line for the u.s.? this is their reason for wanting to attack?

what about when the u.s. helped saddam as he gassed the iranian people?

aren't the reports saying that the syrian government used phosphorus in the attacks? what about when israel used phosphorus on civilians during its attack on gaza?

why this selective outrage by the u.s. and its mouthpieces?

[DogOnPorch]

Good gravy. I was thinking Hudson suffocated you with a pillow and eloped with Naiomi.

Nobody gives a rat's rear because Willy Pete isn't a true chemical weapon. It's nasty and burns...but it's also used to provide smoke screens which you can easily pass through w/o dropping dead. Try that with Sarin.

[bud]

if it isn't the evil empire's mouthpiece!

how phosphorus is used is the issue. report after report have determined that israel used it illegally. ie; they hit civilians with them. similar to what syria has reportedly done. it got so bad that the high court in israel asked israel not to use them anymore. so please stop making excuses for israel.

let's get beyond the illegal use of white phosphorus. WHAT ABOUT U.S.' SUPPORT FOR SADDAM'S USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS?

'splain and rationalize that one doggydog.

[dre]

I agree there is a certain ammount of silliness in the distinction between chemical weapons and conventional weapons.

I mean... we sat by and watched 80 thousand people die from bullets and bombs, but now when a couple of thousand people might have died from chemical weapons we suddenly have to go and intervene. Iraq has to be invaded because they are suspected to have some anthrax and VX, but its invaded by a bunch of countries that have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the human race a few times over.

Its because none of these decisions are rational or principled.

[Moonlight Graham]

bud, to answer the title of your thread, pretty much every state government on the planet takes political and ethical stances that are in their own state interests, but many times these same benchmarks are ignored when it's convenient or advantageous for them. When we elect politicians who sell out much of their moral integrity just to win public office in the first place, what do we expect? Mother Teresa?

[DogOnPorch]

if it isn't the evil empire's mouthpiece!

how phosphorus is used is the issue. report after report have determined that israel used it illegally. ie; they hit civilians with them. similar to what syria has reportedly done. it got so bad that the high court in israel asked israel not to use them anymore. so please stop making excuses for israel.

let's get beyond the illegal use of white phosphorus. WHAT ABOUT U.S.' SUPPORT FOR SADDAM'S USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS?

'splain and rationalize that one doggydog.

Iraqis gassing Iranians was pretty bad but it was still the UAE & pals that supplied the bulk of the precursors via their various Asian and European holding companies.

[Shady]

Not all of the "U.S" is crying about it. Many in the government don't feel there should be any intervention.

[Rue]

i don't get it.

The multiple personality shtick aint working either.

[bud]

bud, to answer the title of your thread, pretty much every state government on the planet takes political and ethical stances that are in their own state interests, but many times these same benchmarks are ignored when it's convenient or advantageous for them. When we elect politicians who sell out much of their moral integrity just to win public office in the first place, what do we expect? Mother Teresa?

thanks! of course, this thread was created to show the hypocrisy of the u.s. government and those who repeat their b.s. in order to justify their actions.

[Argus]

thanks! of course, this thread was created to show the hypocrisy of the u.s. government and those who repeat their b.s. in order to justify their actions.

I'm sure you'd be posting the same things if Israel had gassed Palestinians...

[bud]

Iraqis gassing Iranians was pretty bad but it was still the UAE & pals that supplied the bulk of the precursors via their various Asian and European holding companies.

are you still making excuses for the u.s. helping saddam to use chemical weapons? shame on you.

The declassified CIA documents show that Casey and other top officials were repeatedly informed about Iraq's chemical attacks and its plans for launching more. "If the Iraqis produce or acquire large new supplies of mustard agent, they almost certainly would use it against Iranian troops and towns near the border," the CIA said in a top secret document.

But it was the express policy of Reagan to ensure an Iraqi victory in the war, whatever the cost.

[Guest American Woman]

thanks! of course, this thread was created to show the hypocrisy of the u.s. government and those who repeat their b.s. in order to justify their actions.

I think you may have missed his point, the point being "every state government on the planet takes political and ethical stances that are in their own state interests, but many times these same benchmarks are ignored when it's convenient or advantageous for them." In other words, the government of every country is hypocritical, so that's going to amount to a lot of threads! Best get busy.

So what do you think about Obama's anger over Syria's use of chemical weapons? That's a good thing, right?

[bud]

I think you may have missed his point, the point being "every state government on the planet takes political and ethical stances that are in their own state interests, but many times these same benchmarks are ignored when it's convenient or advantageous for them." In other words, the government of every country is hypocritical, so that's going to amount to a lot of threads! Best get busy.

So what do you think about Obama's anger over Syria's use of chemical weapons? That's a good thing, right?

if it isn't american woman: miss misunderstood.

you obviously don't get the point.

the value of this anger and outrage is empty considering the u.s. had a big role in iraq's chemical weapons attack against its own people and the iranians.

it's like watching karla homolka being upset and outraged that people are sitting back while children are being raped and killed.

Edited August 29, 2013 by bud

[DogOnPorch]

are you still making excuses for the u.s. helping saddam to use chemical weapons? shame on you.

The declassified CIA documents show that Casey and other top officials were repeatedly informed about Iraq's chemical attacks and its plans for launching more. "If the Iraqis produce or acquire large new supplies of mustard agent, they almost certainly would use it against Iranian troops and towns near the border," the CIA said in a top secret document.

But it was the express policy of Reagan to ensure an Iraqi victory in the war, whatever the cost.

See below...

[Guest American Woman]

the value of this anger and outrage is empty considering the u.s. had a big role in iraq's chemical weapons attack against its own people and the iranians.

it's like watching karla homolka being upset and outraged that people are sitting back while children are being raped and killed.

I meant in regards to the Syrians who are the victims; the impact it all has on them. So should Obama simply do nothing about it, pretend it's not happening, because Reagan did whatever decades ago? Would that (non)response please you?

Edited August 29, 2013 by American Woman

[bud]

i don't think there is anyone here that thinks the people being attacked is not a bad thing. of course it is.

i am talking about obama's supposed outrage and conscience. it's empty. it has no value. he doesn't care about the syrian people. if obama really cared about civilians being killed or being hit by chemical weapons, then he would have spoken out against israel's illegal use of white phosphorus against civilians.

the same goes for you.

why pretend this is about morals and values of obama and the u.s.? this is geopolitical. this is about feeding the war machines who are starving for another firework.

[Guest American Woman]

i don't think there is anyone here that thinks the people being attacked is not a bad thing. of course it is.

That's not what I asked you. If Obama were not outraged and did nothing because of what other POTUS"s may or may not have done, do you think that would be better? Do you think the Syrian victims would scoff at any help they might get from the U.S, and find it meaningless because Obama didn't speak out against "israel's illegal use of white phosphorus against civilians?"

[bud]

would i think it would be a bad thing if karma homolka reported the rape and killing of children done by someone so something can be done about it? no, i wouldn't.

would i believe that she's shocked, outraged and that her conscience was bothering her that it was happening? no, i wouldn't.

[Guest American Woman]

would i think it would be a bad thing if karma homolka reported the rape and killing of children done by someone so something can be done about it? no, i wouldn't.

would i believe that she's shocked, outraged and that her conscience was bothering her that it was happening? no, i wouldn't.

So can't you answer my questions? Or are you just refusing to?

[bud]

you got my answer.

[DogOnPorch]

So can't you answer my questions? Or are you just refusing to?

America hasn't had a CW program since Nixon. WP isn't a chemical weapon. Iraq's precursor supply was on the map bc-2004 provided in the other Syrian chemical weapons thread.

[bud]

i support saving the raped victims and bringing those who have committed crimes to justice.

i just don't believe karla homolka's cries for justice and i don't believe she has any conscience or should be given any credibility when she says the right thing should be done. she probably just wants to take over the rapists apartment when he's taken away.

if karla really had a conscience and cared about doing the ethical thing, she would have done something when israel paul bernardo, the psychopath was doing what he was doing.

[GostHacked]

That's not what I asked you. If Obama were not outraged and did nothing because of what other POTUS"s may or may not have done, do you think that would be better? Do you think the Syrian victims would scoff at any help they might get from the U.S, and find it meaningless because Obama didn't speak out against "israel's illegal use of white phosphorus against civilians?"

All governments are more corrupt that we think. That does not paint a bright future for you or me regardless of our political and personal views and where we live and how we grew up and what we know. The common thing is the common man (or woman) will become victims if we allow this kind of intervention in other sovereign states.

Edited August 30, 2013 by GostHacked

[Moonlight Graham]

All governments are more corrupt that we think. That does not paint a bright future for you or me regardless of our political and personal views and where we live and how we grew up and what we know. The common thing is the common man (or woman) will become victims if we allow this kind of intervention in other sovereign states.

Are you familiar with the UN's "responsibility to protect"? What do you think about it?

There needs to be a line drawn for under what circumstances other states can intervene into other sovereign states. One state aggressively invading another for unprovoked reasons (ie: Iraq invading Kuwait in early 90's) would be one circumstance. Certain crimes against humanity (ie: mass genocide) would be another. Should we just let things like the Nazi holocaust and Rwandan genocide happen in the name of protecting sovereignty?

There's also a standard that can be set if countries let Syria use chemical weapons. It can show other countries ie: North Korea, that the West will not intervene if chemical weapons are used on a countries' own people, therefore making it more likely states will use these weapons if there are no consequences. I'm not stating my support or not for intervention in Syria, just putting things out there. I don't know enough about the situation to make a call either way.

[GostHacked]

Are you familiar with the UN's "responsibility to protect"? What do you think about it?

There needs to be a line drawn for under what circumstances other states can intervene into other sovereign states.

I think we can dispatch the notion of sovereignty since this can happen.

One state aggressively invading another for unprovoked reasons (ie: Iraq invading Kuwait in early 90's) would be one circumstance. Certain crimes against humanity (ie: mass genocide) would be another. Should we just let things like the Nazi holocaust and Rwandan genocide happen in the name of protecting sovereignty?

So who has Syria invaded as of late?

There's also a standard that can be set if countries let Syria use chemical weapons.

Check the casualty count from this already 2 years struggle. These cries of chemical weapons and a red line is laughable. All of a sudden we are concerned about people dying in Syria? We've had two years to give a damn. Why all of a sudden?

It can show other countries ie: North Korea, that the West will not intervene if chemical weapons are used on a countries' own people, therefore making it more likely states will use these weapons if there are no consequences.

The ones most likely to use them are the ones saying others should not.

I'm not stating my support or not for intervention in Syria, just putting things out there. I don't know enough about the situation to make a call either way.

All I can say is .. No war, not in my name.

What about Darfur?

What about the Congo?

What about Nigeria?

What about Brazil? Venezuela? Eastern Europe?

What about Tibet?

'All I can say is that they don't really care about us.' - MJ

What about the thousand other places horrible atrocities are taking place? Is it the world does not know or does not care? I agree chemical weapons are horrible as nukes are. Even a loaded 50 cal can gun down hundreds of people in a short time, but we cry when chemical weapons are used? A quick bullet to the head more acceptable than suffering before death from a chemical weapon? The end result is the same . ,,, a dead human.