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

[bud]

And her words were denied by the UN the next day.

her report was denied by the UN? do tell.

since obama has shown 0 evidence that assad has used chemicals, it stands that there is more proof showing the rebels have used chemical weapons than assad has.

if obama and co. are so sure and have unquestionable proof that assad has used chemical weapons, then why aren't they showing it to anyone, including the UN and of course the members of congress? it's a simple question that us "truthers" want to know. i realize that you are a huge fan of obama and biden and take every word they say without questioning them, but wouldn't it be a good idea to show some proof before start bombing? or you just need to some fireworks NOW?

Edited September 9, 2013 by bud

[Argus]

since obama has shown 0 evidence that assad has used chemicals,

Since your opening sentence is clearly drivel, it follows that the rest is of no importance.

[bud]

Since your opening sentence is clearly drivel, it follows that the rest is of no importance.

US: Proven Link of Assad to Gas Attack Lacking - ABC News

McDonough conceded the administration lacks "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence" that skeptical Americans, including lawmakers who will start voting on military action this week, are seeking.

you'll be taken seriously once you offer more than just words on the screen, like links and citations.

[Rue]

US: Proven Link of Assad to Gas Attack Lacking - ABC News

McDonough conceded the administration lacks "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence" that skeptical Americans, including lawmakers who will start voting on military action this week, are seeking.

you'll be taken seriously once you offer more than just words on the screen, like links and citations.

Bud get real. You think if you pretend there is only one headline to quote that establishes your point is the only one that can exist? Lol.

Bud you have no monopoly on truth as much as you would like to think only what you provide can be considered as truth.

Get off the throne Bud.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-27/assad-s-brother-seen-linked-to-syria-chemical-attack.html

http://news.sky.com/story/1136599/syria-defector-exposes-assad-chemical-attack

[jacee]

For me the question is not whether Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. The question is what response is appropriate.

If the evidence exists, then Assad is a criminal under international law and should be apprehended and turned over to the international courts for trial.

But the US doesn't endorse the international criminal courts, so instead they contemplate illegal action of their own.

Apparently they think they are judge jury and executioner. Legal process means nothing, and inevitable civilian 'collateral damage' means nothing either: The US believes in fighting criminal behaviour with ... more criminal behaviour.

Edited September 13, 2013 by jacee

[Argus]

pparently they think they are judge jury and executioner. Legal process means nothing, and inevitable civilian 'collateral damage' means nothing either: The US believes in fighting criminal behaviour with ... more criminal behaviour.

What would you do? Oh right. NOTHING! In fact, go over all the international crisises over the past thirty years and that would still be your answer. "Nothing", or "I dunno", or, "gee, someone should do something about that" or "Too bad all those people are dying. Pass the cookies"

[Guest American Woman]

For me the question is not whether Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. The question is what response is appropriate.

So do tell. What response do you deem appropriate?

If the evidence exists, then Assad is a criminal under international law and should be apprehended and turned over to the international courts for trial.

And who is going to go knock on his door, slap on the handcuffs when he answers, and whisk him away to the international courts?

But the US doesn't endorse the international criminal courts, so instead they contemplate illegal action of their own.

The U.S. is contmplating what it thinks is the right thing to do under the circumstances. Would you rather see the continuation of chemical attacks against thousands of innocent civilians - or would you rather see an attempt to stop it?

What if you had a gun and were witnessing someone shooting into a crowd of unarmed civilians. Would you not shoot that person with your gun? It's not self defense, since you aren't in the crowd, so would that stop you from acting? What if you might accidently hit one or two of the people in the crowd? Would that prevent you from trying to get the person shooting into the crowd, as he continuted to kill dozens?

Apparently they think they are judge jury and executioner. Legal process means nothing,

I thought that just because something was law didn't mean it was just and right. Isn't that your stand?

Do you care more about following international law than you care about innocent lives?

and inevitable civilian 'collateral damage' means nothing either

If "inevitable" civilian deaths meant nothing, there woudln't be a terrorist or terrorist suspect still living.

The US believes in fighting criminal behaviour with ... more criminal behaviour.

I swear some people take more issue with a comparatively low collarteral death count (or simply the possibility of collateral deaths) as a result of U.S. military action than they do thousands of civiliians killed at the hands of brutal leaders.

Seriously. Which do you care more about? The thousands of innocent civlians who have already been killed/injured by chemicals and those who would be subjected to future attacks - or the possible relatively few collateral deaths that might occur if the U.S. makes military strikes? Do you think it would be better to let the criminal behavior on the part of those killing innocent civilians in chemical attacks continue unchecked? Is keeping within international law more important in your mind?

[bud]

For me the question is not whether Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. The question is what response is appropriate.

If the evidence exists, then Assad is a criminal under international law and should be apprehended and turned over to the international courts for trial.

But the US doesn't endorse the international criminal courts, so instead they contemplate illegal action of their own.

Apparently they think they are judge jury and executioner. Legal process means nothing, and inevitable civilian 'collateral damage' means nothing either: The US believes in fighting criminal behaviour with ... more criminal behaviour.

assad may have used chemical weapons. from what the opposition has said and other evidence, the opposition has also used chemical weapons. they are both guilty of breaking international law. they should be prosecuted just like many others have been in the past for breaking international law.

an attack will not resolve anything. everyone except for the warmongering neocons who were mostly behind the iraq b.s. and obama who trapped himself by trying to act tough are advocating for an attack.

[Guest American Woman]

What would you do? Oh right. NOTHING! In fact, go over all the international crisises over the past thirty years and that would still be your answer. "Nothing", or "I dunno", or, "gee, someone should do something about that" or "Too bad all those people are dying. Pass the cookies"

It's amazing how much (totally selective) respect some have for the law - as they generally have so little respect for the law.

Edited September 13, 2013 by American Woman

[jacee]

What would you do? Oh right. NOTHING! In fact, go over all the international crisises over the past thirty years and that would still be your answer. "Nothing", or "I dunno", or, "gee, someone should do something about that" or "Too bad all those people are dying. Pass the cookies"

I said clearly that IF evidence exists that Assad used chemical weapons against civilians then he is a criminal and should be apprehended and tried for his crimes.

No I don't believe that military action will accomplish anything except more damage to the people of Syria.

[Guest American Woman]

I said clearly that IF evidence exists that Assad used chemical weapons against civilians then he is a criminal and should be apprehended and tried for his crimes.

So. Again. How do you think he should be apprehended? Who do you think should do it? There's an international court, but no international police that I'm aware of. And how do you propose they'd go about arresting him and bringing him to trial?

[GostHacked]

It's amazing how much (totally selective) respect some have for the law - as they generally have so little respect for the law.

How about the USA sign up to that nice little thing called the International Criminal Court and be accountable for its actions?

[Guest American Woman]

How about the USA sign up to that nice little thing called the International Criminal Court and be accountable for its actions?

Would you sign up for something you didn't believe in? And why hasn't Canada been held accoutable for it's actions? Seems to me your concern with accountability should start with your own country.

[guyser]

Would you sign up for something you didn't believe in? And why hasn't Canada been held accoutable for it's actions? Seems to me your concern with accountability should start with your own country.

The US has signed up but not ratified, nor expected to do so

Canada not only signed up but have ratified

[jacee]

And who is going to go knock on his door, slap on the handcuffs when he answers, and whisk him away to the international courts?

It's a UN function.

The U.S. is contmplating what it thinks is the right thing to do under the circumstances.

Under what authority?

Do you care more about following international law than you care about innocent lives?

Do you mean the people killed by Assad or the ones about to be killed by the US military?

It must be so difficult to figure out which "innocent lives" are important and which aren't.

I swear some people take more issue with a comparatively low collarteral death count (or simply the possibility of collateral deaths) as a result of U.S. military action than they do thousands of civiliians killed at the hands of brutal leaders.

Seriously. Which do you care more about? The thousands of innocent civlians who have already been killed/injured by chemicals and those who would be subjected to future attacks - or the possible relatively few collateral deaths that might occur if the U.S. makes military strikes?

Ah ... I see you've made up your mind: Innocent lives taken by others are important. Innocent lives taken by the US are not important.

Just Iraq all over again.

The US arms industry needs to convince Obama to start another war to beef up their profits?

[jacee]

There's an international court, but no international police that I'm aware of.

google it and become aware

[jacee]

Would you sign up for something you didn't believe in? And why hasn't Canada been held accoutable for it's actions? Seems to me your concern with accountability should start with your own country.

I'll bite: What actions should Canada be held accountable for in your opinion?

[Guest American Woman]

It's a UN function.

Really? It is?? So tell me about it. Tell me how the UN is supposed to do it. What branch of the UN arrests errant leaders? I would love to hear how Assad is suppposed to be arrested by the UN. I'm all ears.

Under what authority?

Under it's own authority.

Do you mean the people killed by Assad or the ones about to be killed by the US military?

My question was clear. I take it you can't answer it?

It must be so difficult to figure out which "innocent lives" are important and which aren't.

Apparently it's not so difficult for you.

Ah ... I see you've made up your mind: Innocent lives taken by others are important. Innocent lives taken by the US are not important.

Ah - I see you are ccpping out of answering the questions by making ludicrous claims about me.

You didn't answer or address one question, and since the questions are very simple and direct, it tells me that you are pleading The Fifth. It tells me everything I need to know.

3000+ deaths at the hands of Assad are not as worrisome as possible collateral damage by the U.S.

[Guest American Woman]

google it and become aware

It's too difficult for you to answer, is it?

I repeat. Tell me how the UN is supposed to arrest Assad. What branch of the UN arrests errant leaders? I would love to hear how Assad is suppposed to be arrested by the UN.

Edited September 13, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I'll bite: What actions should Canada be held accountable for in your opinion?

"google it and become aware"

[jacee]

"google it and become aware"

Well I guess we're at stalemate.

You know nothing about the ICC and international policing and don't care to google. In your view, the US simply bombs any country it wants to on its own authority for whatever reason it makes up - esp for access to resources. The US is not to be held accountable by anyone. mhm

The ICC issues international criminal arrest warrants.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Court

And I tried googling 'Canada needs to be held accountable' but found nothing. I'm interested though.

Edited September 14, 2013 by jacee

[Guest American Woman]

Well I guess we're at stalemate.

You know nothing about the ICC and international policing. In your view, the US simply bombs any country it wants to on its own authority for whatever reason it makes up - esp for access to resources. The US is not to be held accountable by anyone. mhm

You might want to try speaking for yourself instead of ignorantly speaking for me and my views. Or is that too difficult? I've noticed your complete inability to address any of the questions I've raised.

At any rate, evidently you know nothing about international policing as you can't even explain how your suggestion would be carried out - ie: how Assad would be arrested, and who would do it. Sounds good to say it though, eh? Is that it? Or perhaps it's more a 'feel good' holier-than-thou thing since you've not shown it to be a reality thing.

And I tried googling 'Canada needs to be held accountable' but found nothing. I'm interested though.

That says a lot about your Google skills. And probably a lot in general .....

Edited September 13, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Would you sign up for something you didn't believe in? And why hasn't Canada been held accoutable for it's actions? Seems to me your concern with accountability should start with your own country.

My point was that the USA stands for justice, or so we are told, and in my view would be a big backer of something like the ICC, which was born out of the Nuremberg Trials and how they were carried out. Once you sign up and ratify it then you become accountable to those international laws. Then your immunity from being tried at the ICC no longer exists. The USA would then be accountable for its actions and people like Bush, Cheney, Obama and many others would be doing face time in front of the judges at the ICC.

An example is Iraq where the first Gulf War, Hussein marched his guys across into Kuwait. The USA responded with the coalition of the willing to kick the Iraqi army out. Round 2 and the only aggressor was the USA. Not to mention the USA did not care if Iraq was actively attacking Iran for a decade, with their help on BOTH sides. So there are many inconsistencies in how this international law is viewed by some nations, specifically the USA.

Funny we see Putin being called names because he pulled the wild card out and vetoed any resolution against Syria. Kind of like how the USA goes to bat for Israel and has many motions against it vetoed.

So, it's a severe half ass and at times hypocritical approach to how international law is adhered to by a nation like the USA.

Edited September 13, 2013 by GostHacked

[dre]

What would you do? Oh right. NOTHING! In fact, go over all the international crisises over the past thirty years and that would still be your answer. "Nothing", or "I dunno", or, "gee, someone should do something about that" or "Too bad all those people are dying. Pass the cookies"

That depends on what the options are. I wouldnt do something stupid just for the purpose of "doing something".

In this case though things turned out pretty good. The threat of force resulted in a diplomatic solution. If I didnt know better I would say that Obama and Putin planned this little game of good cop / bad cop from the beginning. Its a huge win... Assads munitions and materials will be confiscated, and we know where they were produced, plus he will sign on to the chemical weapons treaty.

He will probably go on to win this civil war which is probably a good thing because the Christians and Allawites will get to live.

All the people claiming to have conclusive evidence that Assad ordered these attacks should turn it over the international court, then we can bide our time until we get a chance to nab him, and bring him to the Hague.

[Shady]

You mean like when Russia blows up apartment buildings in Moscow, and says "Those dirty Chechins did it!' and then proceeds to slaughter tens of thousands of Chechins? Or do you mean when Russia feeds arms and trainers into a small province of Georgia, and gets them to attack their government, and then Russia invades Georgia to 'defend the innocent'? Russia is a kleptocracy where anyone who goes against Putin dies or winds up in prison. And you think this is an honest man who says what he means and means what he says?

Hey now, I won't take anyone questioning Putin's honesty and openness. When he says Russia had nothing to do with Alexander Litvinenko's sudden radiation poisoning, I believe himmm, ahhhh, haaaa haaaa. Uh, I almost said it with a straight face. GH doesn't understand that's how Putin deals with his own Edward Snowdens. American officials just complain about theirs.