Jump to content

'No doubt' Syria used chemical arms, says US Vice-President Joe Biden


webfact

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 339
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Syria is not Vietnam.

Syria is not Iraq.

Syria is Syria.

Syria is just another excuse (Gulf of Tonkin).

Syria is Iraq.

Syria is the money mule.

Obama obviously didn't want anything like this. It's so easy to see all U.S. presidents as alike, but that's not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest here: I am following this by the minute:

Russia is rejecting the inspectors reports.

http://www.dw.de/russias-putin-rejects-syria-chemical-weapons-allegations-as-nonsense/a-17057747

Of course they are. That isn't news. That is 100 percent expected. They are locked in to their position regarding Assad. Doesn't matter what he did or didn't do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest here: I am following this by the minute:

Russia is rejecting the inspectors reports.

http://www.dw.de/russias-putin-rejects-syria-chemical-weapons-allegations-as-nonsense/a-17057747

Of course. Goes without saying. They would reject Assad himself saying he did it. Russian will back their position to the bitter end regardless of evidence or reality.

Why, because Putin can do or say anything he wants and no one in Russia can do jack <deleted> about it. Putin will also NEVER ever admit he is wrong on anything and he has the untenable position of being in the corner of a war criminal committing mass genocide.

Edited by F430murci
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest here: I am following this by the minute:

Russia is rejecting the inspectors reports.

http://www.dw.de/russias-putin-rejects-syria-chemical-weapons-allegations-as-nonsense/a-17057747

Of course. Goes without saying. They would reject Assad himself saying he did it. Russian will back their position to the bitter end regardless of evidence or reality.

Why, because Putin can do or say anything he wants and no one in Russia can do jack <deleted> about it. Putin will also NEVER ever admit he is wrong on something like this.

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed. It is generally accepted, but not written into law, that quoting the first two or three sentences of an article and giving a link to the source is considered “fair use” and not a violation of copyright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama obviously didn't want anything like this. It's so easy to see all U.S. presidents as alike, but that's not the case.

So what's he doing in Syria's backyard? Obama is just a puppet, like the others.

Fine. Puppets huh? I won't even ask. facepalm.gif I reckon if a bigger war breaks out, we'll be on different sides anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no international body that can tell the US or any other country what to do.

Assuming you are speaking from a moral rather than pragmatic standpoint, then is there an international body that can tell the sovereign country of Syria "what to do"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine. Puppets huh? I won't even ask. facepalm.gif I reckon if a bigger war breaks out, we'll be on different sides anyway.

Wrong, you think positive and try to support your commitment to your country and your opinion.

Therefore we are allies. Forever.

Edited by Dancealot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest here: I am following this by the minute:

Russia is rejecting the inspectors reports.

http://www.dw.de/russias-putin-rejects-syria-chemical-weapons-allegations-as-nonsense/a-17057747

As I read it, the article states that Putin rejects the US allegations, not the inspectors report.

Correct. Very diplomatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The case for punitive action against Assad. Basically, doing nothing is worse.

So why do it? Because if we don’t, things can get much worse. “We cannot see a breach of the nonproliferation norm,” Obama argued. We “have to make sure that when countries break international norms on weapons like chemical weapons that could threaten us, that they are held accountable.” This afternoon, Kerry elaborated:

“A lot of other countries whose policy has challenged these international norms are watching. … They are watching to see if Syria can get away with it, because then maybe they too can put the world at greater risk. … [if] Assad can gas thousands of his own people with impunity … there will be no end to the test of our resolve and the dangers that will flow from those others who believe that they can do as they will. … [iran] will now feel emboldened, in the absence of action, to obtain nuclear weapons. It is about Hezbollah and North Korea and every other terrorist group or dictator that might ever again contemplate the use of weapons of mass destruction. Will they remember that the Assad regime was stopped from those weapons’ current or future use? Or will they remember that the world stood aside and created impunity?”

I wouldn't expect pro-Putin, Iran apologists, etc. people to agree. Different sides, natch.

Edited by Jingthing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NeverSure, c'mon your own president Mr Obama is saying:

On Friday, Obama said such attacks threaten U.S. national security interests by violating international norms against the use of chemical weapons. He said he had not yet made a final decision about what course of action to take in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons, but said the world "has an obligation" to maintain the norm against the use of such weapons.

norms = laws

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a nice article,"Erdogan wants Syria regime change, not limited strikes" on the thoughts of Turkey's President Erdogan on the Syria conflict. Erdogan seems to be disappointed that only a "limited strike" is planned. He says A limited operation cannot be satisfactory for us,. I wonder if he is going to be upset enough to use Turkish military forces to effect this regime change that he wants?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, where do you find these sites? Bookmarked?

Here is one for your collection.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_MA6j4IhYZs&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D_MA6j4IhYZs

But this one really gets to the nut of the problem.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4HN4dxrMQZ4&feature=related

Edited by F430murci
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NeverSure, c'mon your own president Mr Obama is saying:

On Friday, Obama said such attacks threaten U.S. national security interests by violating international norms against the use of chemical weapons. He said he had not yet made a final decision about what course of action to take in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons, but said the world "has an obligation" to maintain the norm against the use of such weapons.

norms = laws

Norms = normal practice.

Laws have teeth.

You're trying too hard.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...