bumper234 wrote: » But firing cruise missiles at almost $1.5 million a piece is a cheap and effective solution to other peoples chemical weapons? What about Israels stockpile of chemical weapons? Will the US tell them that they must get rid of them seeing as they are fond of using them?
Tony EH wrote: » Of course. THEY are the nation who bleat the loudest about WMD, while at the same time they continue to hold vast stocks themselves. Not only that, but they continue to develop other forms of warfare that they, themselves, deem to unworthy, like biological and bacterial warfare. Because of that, they deserve the criticism that they receive. The sheer hypocrisy of their position must be stunning to all, but the most stilted minds.
Tony EH wrote: » Or their nuclear weapons which they continue to develop in flagrant violation of international (including America) agreements on non-proliferation. A situation that would see fierce condemnation, if not outright attack from the US, if it was another nation attempting such actions.
Rascasse wrote: » Again with the US.
Rascasse wrote: » Again with the US. It is probably the same reason the Russian's haven't managed to get rid of all of theirs - it's expensive and time consuming.
Tony EH wrote: » Will the US surrender their own for a flippin start? The US STILL has large stocks of sarin etc, that they've been promising to get rid of since the late 90's. If these are weapons they consider illegal to use, then why do they stock them themselves, while at the same time condeming other nations for having them. Don't answer, it's not really a question.
How about taking them off Israel? They have a history of using them too you know. Will the US sweep in and take them from every country or only the ones it deems unworthy?
Saddam said he didn't have them.
Assad has admitted to having them.
As i already pointed out to him as wel
realweirdo wrote: » Saddam said he didn't have them. Assad has admitted to having them. A different scenario completely. Large stockpiles of chemical weapons in an unstable region like the Middle East is not good at the best of times but in the middle of a civil war where either side are desperate to gain an advantage, its a recipe for disaster. They need to be removed and destroyed asap.
Eggy Baby! wrote: » As they do in Brazil and Mexico, but are those two countries evil dictatorships? Back on topic- has the lesson of Iraq been forgotten about this soon?? Remember, back in that time, Saddam had WMDs. It was a "slam dunk".
Jonny7 wrote: » Bit out-dated now, Obama has backed down from immediate strikes and the US/EU is adopting Putin's plan. We'll see if it's genuine or another stalling tactic. An unhealthy amount of journalists fall off ladders in that country
Eggy Baby! wrote: » As they do in Brazil and Mexico, but are those two countries evil dictatorships?
bumper234 wrote: » And that never happens in America right? *cough* Michael Hastings *cough*
An unhealthy amount of journalists fall off ladders in that country
K-9 wrote: » Mod: Ok, that's enough, thread is getting way too personal and snipey. This a warning for everybody, please tone back the language and stop the accusations of trolling and passive aggressive commnents about education etc. Last warning on this, thank you.
esteve wrote: » I feel really bad now, I had no idea you were there on the ground. Why didnt you just say so? Where are you in Syria to have such an informed opinion? I dont care if my opinion doesnt count to you, because having read some of the garbage you have posted, absolute drivel of disinformation and lies, and a warped view on reality, I would hate if you actually agreed with me. You have not presented one piece of evidence that shows Assad without doubt is responsible. The onus is on you to do this. I am reserving my judgement until actual factual evdence has been provided, which is logical, it makes sense. Jumping to conclusions and wanting the US to bomb Damascus is pyschotic. I will say though, word of advice, maybe go back to primary school and learn how to speak and understand english.
Rascasse wrote: » Monbiot? Seriously? As an aside the Observer printed a similar mistake in an opinion piece on Sunday that it had to correct. I find it strange that how many posts are about sticking the boot into the US rather than the issue at hand, whether to punish a dictator militarily to try to prevent further atrocities or stand aside and leave the Syrian people to their fates. This countries struggle for democracy and self determination clearly means nothing when one gets the opportunity to bitch about Americans and white phosphorous (incidentally first used as a weapon by the Irish)
realweirdo wrote: » That has got nothing to do with what we are talking about..you're up to your usually muddying the water routine, introducing things that have no relevance. HRW have carried out an analysis of the situation, far more in depth than you will ever do, and they have formed certain conclusions. That said, I'd like to see you provide some evidence that the FSA are guilty. It's either the FSA or Assad forces who did it..no-one else...So let's see some evidence from you, otherwise stop winding people up.
realweirdo wrote: » Much of the early evidence was destroyed by Assad forces...continual bombardment of the area, starting of fires to clear the air. However, crucially the attack was so vast that Assad forces could not achieve what they set out to do and destroy all the evidence and a significant amount still survives. From now on, I am not going to accept the opinion of someone like you who is thousands of miles from where this happened. If you are willing to post some links to first hand witnesses on the ground or who have carried out an investigation on the ground, I am willing to listen. So far you have come up with nothing...your opinion doesn't count to be honest. You've called for evidence but haven't bothered to come up with opposing evidence. Now is your chance, and your opinion is not evidence.
bumper234 wrote: » http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq
esteve wrote: » I taught english for several years, I dont want to give you a lesson but there is a difference between strongly suggests and without a shadow of a doubt. All i have done in this is apporach it logically, and wait for evidence. Check my previous posts, I have said it is likely he was responsible as that is all that has been offered now, likely scenarios. You however have taken whatever you get and made it categorically true, which is just absolutely bizarre. I have never said it wasn't Assad, I've tried to keep this as a logical debate based on facts. Reading some of your posts, logic need not apply.
Tony EH wrote: » Prosecution evidence STRONGLY SUGGESTED that Kevin from Corrie was a kiddie fiddler a few weeks ago. But when the >FACTS< emerged, it was shown that he was, um, in fact (there's that word again!!!), innocent. facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts............................ad nauseum.....
realweirdo wrote: » Relax pal... HRW have concluded evidence STRONGLY suggests Assad was behind the attack. That's good enough for me. The only ones trolling here are people who keep saying it wasn't Assad, people like you for example...winding people up, offering not a scintilla of evidence to convince anyone it was anyone other than Assad...that to me is trolling.
Godge wrote: » So white phosphorous can be used, according to international law to screen troop movements. The US has admitted to using white phosphorous for screening purposes. Yet you somehow conclude that the US government appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon. I am not saying what is morally right or wrong, I am just pointing out that you have drawn an erroneous conclusion from your own evidence. you have done this by conflating what Field Artillery magazine said with what the US government said.
realweirdo wrote: » Relax pal... HRW have concluded evidence STRONGLY suggests Assad was behind the attack.
esteve wrote: » This is getting increasingly irritating. Is english your first language? I looked at this report but nowhere does it say that without a shadow of a doubt it was Assad. It said it was likely to have been him. Serious mate, are you trolling here?
Tony EH wrote: » The UN has tried to include White Phosphorus (and many other chemical agents, including CS gas) into the list of chemical weapons a number of times, as its effects are just as damaging as others on the list. Guess who continually gets in the way of that though... ...there are no prizes.
Godge wrote: » This is the bit, not in quotations, which was his conclusion.
esteve wrote: » Although white phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon, phosphorus is a chemical and its effects are horrendous. The US also sanctioned the use of its very own chemical weapons during the Iraq-Iran war.
Rascasse wrote: » When was the last time the US used chemical weapons? Agent Orange wasn't intended as a chemical weapon, though arguably it had the effect of a chemical weapon. Did they use them in WW1? If you are referring to DU and white phosphorous they are neither chemical weapons nor banned.
esteve wrote: » No, this was reported at the time, as victims were treated with was the effect of white phosphhorus. He is not conculding this, it was concluded by sources on the ground.
bumper234 wrote: » The US government, in other words, appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon.
