i did, that's why i made the comment. if the world drew the red line, but the world is split on the issue and does nothing, then why is it OUR responsibility? genocide is also 'illegal' but what did the world do about, for example, the rwandan genocide, nothing. These international rules are pure bullshit made by hopelessly naive pseudo-intellectuals, such as yourself. They think because THEY made the rules that people are going to be on board, but when some nation breaks them anyway, what do they do.. absolutely nothing. anyways syria didn't sign any chem weapons ban and since it is a civil war, those rules don't even apply (i see AAA beat me to it). Anyway you slice it, this isn't our fight.
Must Read Article from Wash. Post
- Thread starter piezoe
- Start date
"Anyhow it is clear, by examining the targets of the attack, than only the regime itself could have targeted positions that were so strategic for the opposition. Finally, we consider that the Syrian opposition does not have the capacity to lead an operation of that size with chemical agents. No group belonging to the Syrian opposition has, at this stage, the capacity to stock and use these agents, and even more in proportions comparable to what was used on the night of August, 21 in Damascus. These groups have neither the experience, nor the know-how to implement them, particularly through vectors as those that were used during the August 21 attack."
If not Assad, then who did it?
I could not agree with you more, Beltway. Very well said.
Allow me, if you will, a few remarks with regard to Kerry, whose career I have recently caught up on. I've read a great deal about him, including the biography put together by the reporters on the Boston Globe.
I never really warmed to him, until quite recently. I use that expression because there was something I interpreted as standoffish about him. He has always been an elitist, very well educated and very well connected.
One thing that surprised me was his bravery under fire in Vietnam. There are highly credible accounts from his crewmen, including one who claims Kerry put his life on the line to save him, and another rather amazing account of bravery under fire which you would have to read for yourself. There was one crew member who did not like Kerry, and I can only imagine that it goes back to that same standoffishness that I sensed in him. Very likely that was the source of Kerry's problems in his campaign and true to form, he would not get down in the gutter with the "swift boaters". Had he been willing to, perhaps he could have won the election.
I firmly believed that because of his background and language skills that he had the potential to be one of our greatest Statesmen. On the international stage, the down home folksiness that sells on the U.S. political stump does not carry over. And Kerry had little of the latter. That was of course where Bush could not hold his own, i.e., in the international arena --never mind that there is an occasional Berlesconi.
So I thought, Good!, Obama has chosen Kerry to lead the State Department. That's a good sign. And the way Kerry was carrying out diplomacy was masterful, always respecting confidentiality and staying out of the limelight. I thought , aha, I was right.
Now comes the Syria business and Kerry appears as an administration mouthpiece. I'm distraught by this, and wondering what on Earth is going on. Because, frankly, to me, this strike on Syria makes no sense at all. So this gives me pause. I had so much faith in Kerry's good judgement and ability that I want to think that I am the one mistaken. But on the other hand everything I see makes me believe I am correct. I'm just going to have to wait and see how this plays out and then re-evaluate my position on Kerry.
i read a little more than i stated but I could see where it was going though with the blame everything but obama type shiite. and it even seemed like they were trying to lay iraqs chem weapons development and usage squarely on the Reagan admin. that's enough for me to +1 clubbers excellent summary.
Quote from PiggyBank:
i read a little more than i stated but I could see where it was going though with the blame everything but obama type shiite. and it even seemed like they were trying to lay iraqs chem weapons development and usage squarely on the Reagan admin. that's enough for me to +1 clubbers excellent summary.
Had you read the entire article you would have learned that the U.S. sold them the precursors for synthesis of chemical warfare agents. Knew what the Iraqis were doing. Gave the Iraqis Strategic advice on the position of Iranian forces, and knew the Iraqis were going to use poison gas on the Iranians. How much more more complicit could the U.S. have been?
assuming what you say is actually fact, i still don't care piezoe. Sure, ideally we shouldn't be involved at all in the ME, but we have that little problem of oil consumption (which could be partially or wholly overcome by cutting the red tape here at home if not for liberals). That article is a feeble attempt to legitimize obama's plan, and this doesn't have anything to do with iraq or Reagan or Bush.. obama drew the 'red line' in this case and that's that. if these rules actually mattered then the world should stand behind them, but when it comes right down to it, the international community is a farce. We as US citizens should not be involved in this international garbage. We do all the dirty work, we foot the bill, and for what? Besides we have our own laws and we DON'T answer to the international 'community.' I really don't care what people on the other side of the world are using to kill each other, unless they do it to us or our allies.