realweirdo wrote: » White phosphorous is not part of the convention. Technically Israel didn't break any international laws.
realweirdo wrote: » Anyways you are very good with the whataboutery...to the point where you seem to think its ok for Assad to use sarin because Israel once used white phosphorus.
bumper234 wrote: » Israel also used them in broad daylight why is the US not planning strategic air strikes against them? Israel have also committed war crimes against the Palestinian people yet the US turns a blind eye to them. Why is it ok for Israel to commit these crimes but not anyone else?
esteve wrote: » Goldstone Report
Godge wrote: » The US used nuclear weapons in the second world war. Why isn't it obileterating itself? Your logic, when extended, falls down. Now. let us say the US decides to take on the role you now appear to have suggested - that of world policeman. Who decides who they take action against? If a policeman comes along and sees two people fighting, he sometimes arrests both, sometimes arrests neither and sometimes arrests one or the other, depending on his judgement. Onlookers may think he is being unfair or missing something depending on which action he takes, but generally they accept his judgement. In encouraging the US to take on the role of world policeman, which is what your post suggests, the inevitable conclusion of that is that you will have to accept the US judgement of who is the bad guy.
Godge wrote: » In encouraging the US to take on the role of world policeman, which is what your post suggests, the inevitable conclusion of that is that you will have to accept the US judgement of who is the bad guy.
Godge wrote: » Yawnhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict On 1 April 2011, Goldstone retracted his claim that it was Israeli government policy to deliberately target citizens, saying "While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee's report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy."[14] Rogue soldiers rather than government policy?
Godge wrote: » Yawnhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict On 1 April 2011, Goldstone retracted his claim that it was Israeli government policy to deliberately target citizens, saying "While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee's report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy."[14] !Rogue soldiers rather than government policy?
esteve wrote: » He never once suggested this, he asked a simple question that nobody will answer, but instead it has been turned, twisted and then sent right back at him. It was a simple question. Can anyone actually answer it. If the US care about the use of chemical weapons, why didnt they act against Israel as per the findings of the Goldstone report, instead they gave them 30 billion in military support? Stop avoiding the question. You are right though, Israel has nothing to do with Syria, but how they are treated by the US does!
Godge wrote: » The point I am making is that if you want someone to judge and punish wrongdoers, you must trust their judgement on the wrongdoer, not yours. It is why judges can reject a jury verdict in certain circumstances and can also decide the punishment. For all you know, the US may share your conclusion that the Israeli government should have been punished but decided that the appropriate punishment was a diplomatic word in the ear while in the Syrian case it is something else. .
esteve wrote: » Yawn, whats your point? Still no conclusive proof that Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons, it may have been a rogue general. I dont want to make this about Israel, but there are countless human rights violations that the US ignore. Same goes for numerous US allies in the middle east, and the US ignore these. As do Russia etc, but we all know how they really are, but some people watch too many American movies and are absolutely blinded by some ridiculous rhetoric.
bumper234 wrote: » and there is no way this happened in Syria? It has been claimed MANY times that this could be the actions of a rogue commander and that the government did not know about it.
esteve wrote: » A diplomatic word plus continued military support of billions per year. Dont get me wrong, im as much anti-american as i am anti-russian, as i am anti superpowers who use countries and people to fight proxy wars in order to protect their own self interests. The fact is though, i dont see much difference between the US and Russia in this regard, while some people on here have this warped view of the US as being some shining knight. I for one have no idea where this image can come from, because if you look at the facts and history, it is impossible to come to such a conclusion. I guess their opinion is based on propoganda, blind rhetoric, and blissful ignorance.
Seaneh wrote: » I love how you managed to leave the rest of that paragraph from the wiki article out of your retort. The other principal authors of the UN report, Hina Jilani, Christine Chinkin and Desmond Travers, have rejected Goldstone's reassessment arguing that there is "no justification for any demand or expectation for reconsideration of the report as nothing of substance has appeared that would in anyway change the context, findings or conclusions of that report with respect to any of the parties to the Gaza conflict". So basically one of 4 people who were involved in the mission changed their position with the other 3 (including our own Colonel Desmond Travers) rejecting his reassessment as wrong.
Godge wrote: » , corrupt enrichment of oligarchs and more environmental destruction than anyone except China together with a foreign policy that routinely props up totalitarian regimes is not a country to be admired in any way.
esteve wrote: » This is the thing, the US do all of the above but people seem to turn a blind eye to it as perhaps they do it more cleverly, more discreetly. They have propped up and supported endless regimes and dictators e.g. they were totally involved with Suharto in Indonesia who killed nearly one million people from East Timor, a quarter of their nation, one of the worst genocides since WWII. The word oligarchs is pure semantics, in the US they are called successful capitalists and they exist just as much as in Russia. The US are opening up the Artic for oil exploitation, Alaska also, they have no fixed legislation or plan to reduce fossil fuel consumption. They may be ahead on environmental issues, but only just. I am sorry but facts tell us that the US are as bad as Russia in what you mentioned, sometimes better, sometimes worse, but a country to be admired. How can you admire their actions over the last ten years with Iraq and Afghanistan? Please ignore their blind rhetoric on liberty and democracy and focus on facts, they are much more revealing.
Godge wrote: » I have been to both countries. My views are not based on long-distance viewing. I did not say that America was an angel, I did not say that I agreed with all aspects of their foreign policy, however, I will repeat myself and say that the facts of the matter are that America is a much better, freer, equal country to live in than Russia. It has many things that it can be proud of. If you cannot see the difference between the two, then I am sorry for you. That does not mean that America can escape criticism.
realweirdo wrote: » What exactly is your point? You seem to be arguing that every country should be allowed own WMD and use them on their own people whenever they want or whenever they get out of line since its within their own borders. That seems to be the gist of a lot of your posts. You're taking this anti americanism a bit far to be honest and like most anti americans you tie yourself in such knots that you end up supporting people like Assad, whether you mean to or not.
Godge wrote: » So you dislike innuendo and accusations and prefer facts. Innuendo Accusations???"On November 30, 2005, General Peter Pace stated that white phosphorus munitions were a "legitimate tool of the military" used to illuminate targets and create smokescreens, saying "It is not a chemical weapon. It is an incendiary. And it is well within the law of war to use those weapons as they're being used, for marking and for screening" Which is it? (1) Unsubstantiated allegations unproven in law (against the US) are allowed? (2) Unsubstantiated allegations unproven in law (against Assad) are not allowed?
Tony EH wrote: » Nothing in this post is actually worth a reply.
Mr.Micro wrote: » That is true what you say, compared to Russia. The US has many faults, but I am not sure that it extends the same equalities abroad. At home it is all as you say, but away from home it's a bit of a devil and unpredictable. It certainly has lost it's always the good guy image and is not seen as altruistic anymore but as a superpower with imperialist intentions, or just self serving.
Godge wrote: » The last refuge of those with nothing to say
Tony EH wrote: » No, a perfectly valid response to a rather silly post that didn't contain anything worth replying to.
Tony EH wrote: » No. You posted some silly remarks and a quote from a general who operates in a military unit that used/uses WP in its arsenal. There was nothing worth replying to. If you want a discussion, make some sensible points for someone to counter.
We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
K-9 wrote: » Mod: You've been warned about glib replies before, if something isn't worth replying to then don't reply, don't side track and derail a thread. Don't post in this thread again, thank you.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_p...us_use_in_Iraq Take from it what you will...
Rascasse wrote: » Putin has written an opinion piece in tomorrows NY Times. Not really surprised at it's contents. Playing to the well known fears of the American people. Expressing doubt about the perpetrators of the chemical attack. That intelligence base at Latakia and the port at Tartus must be really important to him. Ends with a bit of zinger:
