The U.S. Launched 59 Cruise Missiles against an airfield in Syria .

[Topaz]

Hey, BC, u and I so far agree on Trump so chill.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Topaz said:

Hey, BC, u and I so far agree on Trump so chill.

 

 I know, but never waste an opportunity to highlight Obama and Trudeau weakness.

[dre]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Chemical wpns are classified as wpns of mass destruction....And the US coalition found thousands of chemical devices, mass production sites..... 

This is pretty much pure mythology.

 

• 50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles
• Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles
• 2 large propellant casting chambers
• 14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity
• Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol
• Some 122 mm chemical warheads
• Some chemical equipment
• 224.6 kg of expired growth media

 

No active production of any considerable capacity was ever found. Almost nothing was found at all.

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Are you suggesting that NO chemical wpns were found in Iraq.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2793452/u-s-troops-did-chemical-weapons-iraq-pentagon-kept-secret-discovery-5-000-warheads-shells-saddam-hussein-s-abandoned-weapons-program-hushed-soldiers-injured.html

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-chemical-weapons-iraq-2014-10

Are you sure that no Chemical wpns were found in Iraq......because the above sources say different ....0f course your sources may trump mine, but you did'nt list one.....I could get more if you like......And i don't recall saying that the mass production facility was in operation today.....what i said was they found one , shown in the video below.....according to the last source provided 412.5 tons of chemical agents were destroyed by UN teams, and that 1.5 tons were unaccounted for.....thats tons......20 liters of water wieghs in at 62 lbs.....so 1.5 tons is alot of VX agent....the worlds deadliest chemical agent in the world....considering all it takes to kill a human is less than a pin heads worth.....

Of course the above amounts do not reflect what was discovered by US coalition forces after the combat began for the first time......the above numbers only include UN inspection teams numbers before combat broke out.....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html

 

Edited April 7, 2017 by Army Guy

[DogOnPorch]

16 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Are you sure that no Chemical wpns were found in Iraq......because the above sources say different ....0f course your sources may trump mine, but you did'nt list one.....

 

There were always chemical weapons in Iraq. The Red Herring was Saddam working on a nuke at that late stage of the game. However, the Anti-Bush crowd still maintains that No WMDs Were Found. That includes nerve agents. But this is untrue...and has always been untrue as the Iran-Iraq War was full of Iraqi nerve gas attacks.

ISIS looks harder than UN officials in shiny shoes when it comes to WMDs...they've found all sorts of goodies and boasted about it. But still...the narrative reads: No WMDs were ever found in Iraq.

[bush_cheney2004]

18 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

There were always chemical weapons in Iraq....

ISIS looks harder than UN officials in shiny shoes when it comes to WMDs...they've found all sorts of goodies and boasted about it. But still...the narrative reads: No WMDs were ever found in Iraq.

 

Agreed...the same misguided  peaceniks claimed that the U.S. gave Iraq the chemical weapons and Dick Cheney had the receipts.

You sir...made the correct Sarin/VX call many years ago.

 

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed...the same misguided  peaceniks claimed that the U.S. gave Iraq the chemical weapons and Dick Cheney had the receipts.

You sir...made the correct Sarin/VX call many years ago.

 

I recall us discussing the increased truck traffic between Iraq and Syria as noted by spy satellites...and our usual suspects poo-pooing us then, too...The Narrative™ is set in concrete.

 

[Charlie]

US has no right to attack Iraq or Syria. Why does US even try to act as if she has an exclusivity of defining humanity or responsibility to save the world.

What they have done in Vietnam or Hiroshima (just two examples of many), I would say our world would be a much better place if US abstains from intervening in other countries' affairs.

 

In that sense, I like Trump's America First approach. Only that he is doing exactly opposite of that by attacking Syria. 

 

Edited April 8, 2017 by Charlie

[Charlie]

If Iraq having WMDs justifies war on Iraq by Americans, would US having WMDs (nuclear bombs) justify war by other countries on the US?  We have examples when US has even used chemical and nuclear weapons on other countries. Actually, US is the only country that has used nuclear weapons on other countries. Do Americans feel any shame for their acts or only that Trump's conscience wakes up only when he sees Assad killing a few children? Any idea, how many children have died because of US invasions around the world. 

Edited April 8, 2017 by Charlie

[blackbird]

41 minutes ago, Charlie said:

US has no right to attack Iraq or Syria. Why does US even try to act as if she has an exclusivity of defining humanity or responsibility to save the world.

What they have done in Vietnam or Hiroshima (just two examples of many), I would say our world would be a much better place if US abstains from intervening in other countries' affairs.

 

In that sense, I like Trump's America First approach. Only that he is doing exactly opposite of that by attacking Syria. 

 

 

 

Being powerful means you get to call the shots.  

The world has many countries that are hostile to the interests of the U.S. and it's allies.  Many bad actors scattered around the world.

Edited April 8, 2017 by blackbird

[bush_cheney2004]

24 minutes ago, Charlie said:

US has no right to attack Iraq or Syria. Why does US even try to act as if she has an exclusivity of defining humanity or responsibility to save the world.

 

Correct, except that the U.S. does not act to save the world.   The U.S. acts to save American and allied interests.

Anyone who disagrees with U.S. interventionist policies is welcome to try and stop them.    Good luck....

[Charlie]

13 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Anyone who disagrees with U.S. interventionist policies is welcome to try and stop them.    Good luck....

You know that US is no more the lone super power. Right? Not that China or Russia are great alternatives,  it's probably better to have options for weaker countries to choose their poison. 

 

OTOH, allied or westerners, whatever you call them, need to get over their privilege. They  don't run the world anymore. 

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Charlie said:

You know that US is no more the lone super power. Right?

 

Yes it is....no other nation in the world has the economic and military power of the United States.

Weaker nations vote with their feet...for the USA.    Canada depends on the U.S. economy more than any other country in the world.

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, Charlie said:

You know that US is no more the lone super power. Right? Not that China or Russia are great alternatives,  it's probably better to have options for weaker countries to choose their poison. 

 

OTOH, allied or westerners, whatever you call them, need to get over their privilege. They  don't run the world anymore. 

What does OTOH mean? 

There are many countries in the world that are bad actors who are a threat to the U.S. and it's allies.     It's not a question of who runs the world.

Who has the strength to deal with the bad actors when they step out of line?

[blackbird]

4 minutes ago, Charlie said:

You know that US is no more the lone super power. Right? Not that China or Russia are great alternatives,  it's probably better to have options for weaker countries to choose their poison. 

 

OTOH, allied or westerners, whatever you call them, need to get over their privilege. They  don't run the world anymore. 

No, their not going to give up their privilege.  Who will deal with the real threats in the world,   like N. Korea,  Iran, and terrorists?

[Charlie]

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

What does OTOH mean? 

There are many countries in the world that are bad actors who are a threat to the U.S. and it's allies.     It's not a question of who runs the world.

Who has the strength to deal with the bad actors when they step out of line?

OTOH = On the other hand... 

Defining bad actors isn't the job of Americans. Bad is a relative term and Americans, Chinese and Russians have varying opinion on the definition.  If you are going to allow every powerful country to take action against the bad actors according to their definition, there will be many unjust wars. 

 

It would be better to go through UN in order to have a consensus against a bad actor and a mutual agreement should be reached before taking unilateral actions. 

 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Charlie said:

Defining bad actors isn't the job of Americans. Bad is a relative term and Americans, Chinese and Russians have varying opinion on the definition.  If you are going to allow every powerful country to take action against the bad actors according to their definition, there will be many unjust wars. 

 

So...there will also be many just wars.

 

Quote

It would be better to go through UN in order to have a consensus against a bad actor and a mutual agreement should be reached before taking unilateral actions. 

 

Guess where most of the UN/NATO military power comes from ?    Bingo...you guessed it !

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, Charlie said:

It would be better to go through UN in order to have a consensus against a bad actor and a mutual agreement should be reached before taking unilateral actions. 

 

 

The UN has been an abysmal failure in many cases in the world.  What has the UN done about the civil war in Syria?  There was no indication the UN was going to do anything at all about the chemical attack on innocent people in Syria.  The UN just talks but does little.  The UN also is unable to act because the Russia and China veto an proposed action. 

[Charlie]

28 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No, their not going to give up their privilege.  Who will deal with the real threats in the world,   like N. Korea,  Iran, and terrorists?

You know that Assad is a secular dictator who has nothing to do with terrorists. Terrorists from Al Qaida, ISIS are supported by Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia is a strong US ally. Middle East is confusing place. Don't ever believe your leaders to give a truthful answer.

 

If you want to support job creation in  military and arms industries by starting unjust wars, then that's a totally different story. Don't bring ethics, human rights and good vs. bad in the picture.   

[Charlie]

14 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The UN has been an abysmal failure in many cases in the world.  What has the UN done about the civil war in Syria?  There was no indication the UN was going to do anything at all about the chemical attack on innocent people in Syria.  The UN just talks but does little.  The UN also is unable to act because the Russia and China veto an proposed action. 

Not that US has achieved anything. Assad is still there. Probably a few of his soldiers died. It would be much more impactful if there was a global consensus to take action against Assad. US, acting as a hegemon and taking actions single handedly, just sends the wrong message to rest of the world. 

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, Charlie said:

Not that US has achieved anything. Assad is still there. Probably a few of his soldiers died. It would be much more impactful if there was a global consensus to take action against Assad. US, acting as a hegemon and taking actions single handedly, just sends the wrong message to rest of the world. 

You forgot the supposedly international body, the UN, is paralyzed because Russia and China do actually Veto anything the U.S. wants to do.  In the past eight years under Obama, the U.S. has taken a hands off approach to Syria.  The problem is Assad in Syria is backed by Russia and Iran.   So there is no "international consensus possible on what to do with Syria.   The U.S. has not decided to go into Syria to try to remove Assad.   The big problem is Russia is there as an ally of Assad (and Iran). 

Another problem in Syria,  some of rebel groups fighting against Assad are terrorist organizations themselves.  So there is nobody is sight the U.S. could trust to take over Syria.

Edited April 8, 2017 by blackbird

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Charlie said:

Not that US has achieved anything. Assad is still there. Probably a few of his soldiers died. It would be much more impactful if there was a global consensus to take action against Assad. US, acting as a hegemon and taking actions single handedly, just sends the wrong message to rest of the world. 

 

What has any other nation done in that regard ?    Will Canada save the world ?

[Charlie]

15 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

What has any other nation done in that regard ?    Will Canada save the world ?

 

I am really trying to understand you. It seems like you genuinely think that US military inventions around the world are for good cause.

I, like many others, think that it isn't the case. US military interventions are perceived by international community as either a way to promote its arms industry or expand its political influence.  

 

The question is not that who would save the world, US or Canada. Question is : Will US or Canada or any self righteous country spare the world and not take any military actions on its own without consulting other powers.  

Edited April 8, 2017 by Charlie

[Charlie]

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You forgot the supposedly international body, the UN, is paralyzed because Russia and China do actually Veto anything the U.S. wants to do.  In the past eight years under Obama, the U.S. has taken a hands off approach to Syria.  The problem is Assad in Syria is backed by Russia and Iran.   So there is no "international consensus possible on what to do with Syria.   The U.S. has not decided to go into Syria to try to remove Assad.   The big problem is Russia is there as an ally of Assad (and Iran). 

Another problem in Syria,  some of rebel groups fighting against Assad are terrorist organizations themselves.  So there is nobody is sight the U.S. could trust to take over Syria.

Yes. UN isn't doing what it's supposed to do. But that doesn't mean US has the right to take an initiative unilaterally. It's like if police doesn't help you what you perceive to be is right, you pick a gun and start doing your perceived "right" thing on your own.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Charlie said:

 

I am really trying to understand you. It seems like you genuinely think that US military inventions around the world are for good cause.

 

 

No, I have consistently stated that U.S. interventions are for American and allied interests, regardless of good or bad cause.  

 

Quote

I, like many others, think that it isn't the case. US military interventions are perceived by international community as either a way to promote its arms industry or expand its political influence. 

 

And yet, the international community is complicit in the very same things, allied with American economic and military power for their own interests.

 

Quote

The question is not that who would save the world, US or Canada. Question is : Will US or Canada or any self righteous country sare the world and not take any military actions on its own without consulting other powers.  

 

No...sovereign nations will seek to control their own military and economic resources, seeking multilateralism when it suits their objectives or when they have no other options.

The weak will always whine about the strong, unless of course they want to be allied for self interest (e.g. Canada - USA).