Should we bomb Syria to save the Syrian children?

Should we help Syria bomb itself?

  • I think more bombs are going to save Syrian children

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • I think less bombs would be better for the children

    Votes: 14 77.8%
  • Total voters
    18
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
yes, we got big ass chemical stockpiles, but the US can be trusted not to use them

britain also has chemical stockpiles

so does russia

so does china

so does france

and yet no CIVILIZED nation has used them since the treaty was signed.

some of the chems are retained for research into treatments, because eventually a madman will get his hands on some.

most of the US's chems are a holdover from the cold war, when both sides were shouting "Come At Me Bro!!"

gradually they are being disposed of, which is an expensive and laborious process, which happens to be the reason we KNOW saddam still had his stockpile, and why some has in fact turned up (check your wikileaks) while the rest was most likely shuffled off to other nations or is still buried in the desert.

Bio Weapons are stored for research into treatments too, under the watchful (but slightly myopic) gaze of the World Health Organization and the CDC.
only a real dumbass would use bioweapons, which is why their presence in sandland is so troubling.
should a fruitcake ever get the Means and Opportunity to release bioweapons you can be pretty sure that any asshole crazy enough to use them will be a moslem.
hell even the australians arent nutty enough to release bioweapons, but theres no shortage of that kind of crazy in sandland.
Click to expand...
So it's "do as I say, not as I do" ?

Typical American response.

Cite evidence it was the Assad regime that launched the chemical weapons btw?
 
lifegoesonbrah

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
So it's "do as I say, not as I do" ?

Typical American response.

Cite evidence it was the Assad regime that launched the chemical weapons btw?
Click to expand...

I believe that, considering our proposed response, it doesn't really matter who did it. We will launch attacks on this country which will cause more lives to be taken and offer no solutions other than saving face and pushing an agenda that we are against chemical attacks.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
So it's "do as I say, not as I do" ?

Typical American response.

Cite evidence it was the Assad regime that launched the chemical weapons btw?
Click to expand...
a stunning display of ignorance . i expect better from you

the chemical/biological weapons treaties prohibit USING these weapons, they do not prohibit having them

secondly, syria, not being a signatory to the treaty is NOT bound by it, therefore even if they did gas their own people,, it is NOT a violation of any treaty.

thirdly, i did not assert that syria gassed anybody, i doubt the veracity of the reports as well as the claims that damascus gassed damascus. i personally suspect that the rebels accidentally gassed themselves then decided to "Never let a crisis go to waste" and pointed their finger at assad.

were assad inclined to use chemical weapons he would have doone it when he was on the ropes, not now that he's winning.

fourthly, in the cited post, i did not even opine on the current allegations of gas attacks, you made that leap all by yourself.
i didnt even refer to these claims obliquely. i was discussing chemical and bio weapons in general, not any specific claim, nor any specific groups or persons.

fifthly i still maintain that Sandland is a hotbed of crazy, and if chemical and bio weapons are released anywhere, dollars to donuts its gonna be in a 'Stan
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
anyone can edit a Pastebin. that doesnt mean anything,, and the very notion is absurd.

the US assisting any nation in gassing anybody IS a treaty violation, even The One is not that stupid
Click to expand...
I agree, about it not meaning a great deal. After all, it is just a site in the wilderness. For all I know, those screenshots could be an elaborate ruse.

However, I think the angle on this story is misleading. It's not that they helped gas anyone, per se, but they capitalized on the aftermath. That is what those messages are implying (if true) at the minimum.

So, what motive would the US have in fomenting the situation further? That is all I am trying to bring up for discussion; does the US have ulterior motives?
 
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
heckler73 said:
I agree, about it not meaning a great deal. After all, it is just a site in the wilderness. For all I know, those screenshots could be an elaborate ruse.

However, I think the angle on this story is misleading. It's not that they helped gas anyone, per se, but they capitalized on the aftermath. That is what those messages are implying (if true) at the minimum.

So, what motive would the US have in fomenting the situation further? That is all I am trying to bring up for discussion; does the US have ulterior motives?
Click to expand...
Let him run around his wilderness of mirrors... I always enjoy your posts...
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Canna Sylvan said:
Since when did America go to war to save the children? I thought that was Sally Struthers job?
Click to expand...
She has the hook-ups for many jobs... "Learning the Personal computer" and "Gun Repair" sound promising...
I bet a great number of al-Nusra and FSA participants started there.

[video=youtube;Fj23I8hgj28]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj23I8hgj28[/video]
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
The reasons we have to bomb them is not because they used chem weapons, rather it I because Obama said we would bomb them if they used chem weapons; it appears Syria has used chem weapons. Either we kill some sand-niggers or we lose credibility. Sorry sand-niggers.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
The reasons we have to bomb them is not because they used chem weapons, rather it I because Obama said we would bomb them if they used chem weapons; it appears Syria has used chem weapons. Either we kill some sand-niggers or we lose credibility. Sorry sand-niggers.
Click to expand...
So Obama can't keep his giant lips shut and now even more people are gonna die?

Even as more evidence keeps mounting that says it was the rebels?

Even as the UN Secretary General says the potential strike is a breach of international law?

The same international law that Syria (apparently) broke?

Irony is just free flowing from the United States, an endless supply of lulz.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
yes, we got big ass chemical stockpiles, but the US can be trusted not to use them

britain also has chemical stockpiles

so does russia

so does china

so does france

and yet no CIVILIZED nation has used them since the treaty was signed.

some of the chems are retained for research into treatments, because eventually a madman will get his hands on some.

most of the US's chems are a holdover from the cold war, when both sides were shouting "Come At Me Bro!!"

gradually they are being disposed of, which is an expensive and laborious process, which happens to be the reason we KNOW saddam still had his stockpile, and why some has in fact turned up (check your wikileaks) while the rest was most likely shuffled off to other nations or is still buried in the desert.

Bio Weapons are stored for research into treatments too, under the watchful (but slightly myopic) gaze of the World Health Organization and the CDC.
only a real dumbass would use bioweapons, which is why their presence in sandland is so troubling.
should a fruitcake ever get the Means and Opportunity to release bioweapons you can be pretty sure that any asshole crazy enough to use them will be a moslem.
hell even the australians arent nutty enough to release bioweapons, but theres no shortage of that kind of crazy in sandland.
Click to expand...


cough cough .....Waco, Texas....cough cough
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
The reasons we have to bomb them is not because they used chem weapons, rather it I because Obama said we would bomb them if they used chem weapons; it appears Syria has used chem weapons. Either we kill some sand-niggers or we lose credibility. Sorry sand-niggers.
Click to expand...

Gotta protect that Nobel Peace Prize, eh?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
I'm curious where the U.S. Constitution authorizes foreign adventures like the one that may unfold in Syria ? Anyone?

How does Syria present a threat to the USA? Are their troops at the borders?

It almost seems like the USA thinks it's the World Police or something.
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I'm curious where the U.S. Constitution authorizes foreign adventures like the one that may unfold in Syria ? Anyone?

How does Syria present a threat to the USA? Are their troops at the borders?

It almost seems like the USA thinks it's the World Police or something.
Click to expand...


seems so, we even have the slogan to prove it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top