The United States is going to attack Assad in Syria?

[Suzierd]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...have-that-is-a-matter-of-the-gravest-concern/


Interesting

 

[MeepBeep]

Yes, but their government is led by some religious nuts that place religious dogma above logic.

You mean just like many elected politicians do in the US?

The same thing holds true for many US elected officials, have you been watching the news there isn't a day gone by that some elected official is ranting 'their own' religious beliefs as a basis for their policy (same sex marriage and abortion are today's topics)...

To be blunt, I fully believe religion has no place in politics or government in this county (or any country for that matter), as any policy, law or what not based on whatever religion violates my rights to not obey or follow that religion even if you or someone else thinks it's 'logical' or 'rightful' to do so...

It's biased (likely based on your own religious beliefs) to say ones religious believes are above logic, while others are not...

I personally find no shortage of 'above logic' religious beliefs worldwide across all religions, in fact one could say I personally find basing your life on religious beliefs illogical as a whole, and I'm sure many would suggest I'm illogical for stating that...

 

[rufus]

I am for allowing people to believe what they want to believe in, just as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Live and let live.

العيش ودع غيرك يعيش

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Just leave this here...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Quote:

 

[Rosa moschata]

Of course there were -- we helped put them there, back in the 1980s. But were they still being actively produced, or rather were the leftovers just sitting somewhere? They certainly posed dangers to those who discovered them, but were they still functional as weapons?

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119832/gop-claim-chemical-weapons-iraq-prove-bush-was-right

 

[MeepBeep]

They certainly posed dangers to those who discovered them, but were they still functional as weapons?

Sure, if you have the raw chemicals you only need to weaponize it and for many of these chemicals it could be as simple as putting a stick of dynamite under a 55 gallon drum and detonating it in a car bomb, or using something like a small crop duster plane to deliver it... There are also chemical warheads for the ever popular SCUDs that they seemed to not have any shortage of... Lots of improvised ways to deliver chemical weapons, that is why they are so dangerous... This might not have been the smoking gun Bush bragged about, but it was a gun none the less...

Just like a dirty nuclear bomb vs an exploded nuclear bomb, you don't need to actually deliver the 'weapon' to it's fullest potential for it to be devastating...

 

[Rosa moschata]

So if you say they're still "weapons of mass destruction" and we knew they were there since the 1980s (since we actually helped put them there in the first place), why suddenly go after Iraq for continuing to have them about 20 years later?

 

[MeepBeep]

So if you say they're still "weapons of mass destruction" and we knew they were there since the 1980s (since we actually helped put them there in the first place), why suddenly go after Iraq for continuing to have them about 20 years later?

Easy, their continued escalation into aggressive acts, supporting terrorist organizations and their invasion of Kuwait being a pivotal turning point... They were no longer the lesser of the two evils (Iran vs Iraq) and thus our allegiance (if you could call it that) switched... Once they invaded Kuwait, there was little doubt they were becoming a threat to other allied neighbors, and that was further entrenched when they lobbed Scuds at Israel and Saudi Arabia... And again driven home firmly when they invaded Saudi Arabia, even if it was brief...

And even though at the time of the 2nd War Iraq was 'playing nice' because they had just got their butts spanked and knew they were under the microscope from the 1st assault, it was only a matter of time before the dust settled and they resumed their ways, IMO the writing was on the wall just covered in paint... I don't necessarily agree with the 'WMD story' that was hyped up to justify the 2nd War, but regardless the 2nd was needed to clean up the threat since the first was abandoned half done, and all combined there was IMO enough justification beyond WMD, but WMD was an easier sell to the UN... WMDs or not Iraq was becoming a threat and if you study history, ignoring up and coming threats usually has much more disastrous endings and comes back to bite even worse... I fully endorse proactive measures, and as much as I might be against people dying and wars it's a necessary evil and sadly we are one of the few countries that has the military power to do the deed...

I'm a realist, and with the rise of the ISIS (among others in the region) it should be patently clear that we were pretty much on target with our proactive measures...

 

[Rosa moschata]

So, we help Iraq get weapons because we have someone in common whom we "don't like", then later decided to attack them because they have weapons and were doing something with them which we don't like. Later, we help ISIS because we have someone in common whom we "don't like", and now we have to fight them as they use weapons we gave them to do things with them which we don't like.

Yep, right on target.....

 

[MeepBeep]

So, we help Iraq get weapons because we have someone in common whom we "don't like", then later decided to attack them because they have weapons and were doing something with them which we don't like. Later, we help ISIS because we have someone in common whom we "don't like", and now we have to fight them as they use weapons we gave them to do things with them which we don't like.


Yep, right on target.....

The truth and reality isn't always warm and fuzzy nor fair...