Syria - another war crime in the making

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Not true. The use of mustard gas in WW I was horrific -- and shocked the world.

With US help, Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980s. The results were also horrific. The US press helped to cover up the facts - because of US complicity. The average American probably doesn't even know it happened.

Israel used white phosphorus (with US approval) against the Palestinians in 2006 - -and the US used white phosphorus against Iraqis in Fallujah. These are chemical weapons.

The US and Israel have both used depleted uranium weapons -- which are terrible and comparable to chemical weapons.

And don't forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This explains the international contempt for Kerry's self righteous grandstanding over Syria. It's total hypocrisy.
MHG

World War I is not "modern warfare" by any stretch.

The use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops was not terribly effective, and its use against troops in general is not, which is why you generally only see it used against civilians, i.e. targets that are not moving and cannot defend themselves. Against a military force, it's just not as effective.

White phosphorous and depleted uranium are not considered chemical weapons...why? BECAUSE THEY ARE USEFUL IN COMBAT.

That is my point entirely. It doesn't mean I agree with it, nor does it mean I support their use.

All this means is that in the grand scheme of things, your assessment of the threat Syria poses to our military is way, way off.

Does that mean I want to see us involved in Syria? Not at all. But you do need to learn a little more about military tactics and technology before spouting off about it. You could start with a lesson on World War I, and then move up to the effective range of the Israeli Air Force (which I schooled you in last year), then to the effective range of Syrian/Russian missiles.

All this stuff is available on the internet these days.

[W*GS]

The great thing about gaffe is that he proves his ignorance on all kinds of subjects - military stuff, metallurgy, science, physics, chemistry, astronomy, politics, and many more - every time he posts.

[Rohirrim]

No. The U.S. has nothing to fear about a Syrian military response. It's a joke to consider it. Here's what will happen. Against the will of the American people and Congress, Obama will strike a bunch of sites in Syria, probably with Tomahawks or bombs (or both). This will have little effect on the final outcome in Syria. We only need to look at Libya and Egypt to see how out-of-control these kinds of conflicts are. But Hezbollah will respond. A busload of American tourists in, who knows where, Bali? Thailand? Spain? will be blown to ****. Obama will turn Americans into targets over a conflict that has absolutely nothing to do with any American vital interest.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

No. The U.S. has nothing to fear about a Syrian military response. It's a joke to consider it. Here's what will happen. Against the will of the American people and Congress, Obama will strike a bunch of sites in Syria, probably with Tomahawks or bombs (or both). This will have little effect on the final outcome in Syria. We only need to look at Libya and Egypt to see how out-of-control these kinds of conflicts are. But Hezbollah will respond. A busload of American tourists in, who knows where, Bali? Thailand? Spain? will be blown to ****. Obama will turn Americans into targets over a conflict that has absolutely nothing to do with any American vital interest.

I concur. A hit out of the park.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by W*GS

I concur. A hit out of the park.

+2

Our foreign policy is a joke.

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

You guys are sooooooooooooooooooooo wrong about Big "o" you owe the rest of us money!

[slick7]

Guys, if the US sits back and does nothing we will be seen as weak.

/sarcasm

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

No. The U.S. has nothing to fear about a Syrian military response. It's a joke to consider it. Here's what will happen. Against the will of the American people and Congress, Obama will strike a bunch of sites in Syria, probably with Tomahawks or bombs (or both). This will have little effect on the final outcome in Syria. We only need to look at Libya and Egypt to see how out-of-control these kinds of conflicts are. But Hezbollah will respond. A busload of American tourists in, who knows where, Bali? Thailand? Spain? will be blown to ****. Obama will turn Americans into targets over a conflict that has absolutely nothing to do with any American vital interest.

You are par for the course around here.

No one is claiming that Syria is a security threat to the US except Obama and Kerry. Certainly not me.

But this does not mean that a US strike is not incredibly stupid and extremely dangerous. It is.

It certainly does appear that Bibi Netanyahu is getting his wish. The US intel was actually supplied by the Mossad - -and is probably fraudulent.

A US strike will weaken Syria -- but Syria will respond. They have to. If Israel and Lebanon become involved -- it can quickly spread.

If Iran becomes involved, all bets are off. The resulting fire storm can quickly escalate to WW III.

As for the alleged ineffectiveness of chemical weapons -- Sarin kills 90% of the people who come in contact.

The complacency around here is nauseating.

MHG

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The resulting fire storm can quickly escalate to WW III.

That gives you a chub.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

As for the alleged ineffectiveness of chemical weapons -- Sarin kills 90% of the people who come in contact.

The complacency around here is nauseating.

MHG

If it were effective in combat, the US would never have agreed to a ban. Unless you think that somehow the US has some sort of humanitarian compass when it comes to winning wars. That's a laugh and a half right there.

Let's look at another example.

Landmines!

They're banned by every nearly every western nation except the United States. Why? Because there are over a million landmines lining the DMZ between North and South Korea!

Let's look at another example.

Shotguns!

The Germans wanted to have them included in the Hague Convention because they caused unnecessarily cruel suffering. Never stuck. Why? Because they are quite effective in trench warfare (which is why they were also used in the Korean War and in the tunnels of Vietnam).

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

You are par for the course around here.

No one is claiming that Syria is a security threat to the US except Obama and Kerry. Certainly not me.

But this does not mean that a US strike is not incredibly stupid and extremely dangerous. It is.

It certainly does appear that Bibi Netanyahu is getting his wish. The US intel was actually supplied by the Mossad - -and is probably fraudulent.

A US strike will weaken Syria -- but Syria will respond. They have to. If Israel and Lebanon become involved -- it can quickly spread.

If Iran becomes involved, all bets are off. The resulting fire storm can quickly escalate to WW III.

As for the alleged ineffectiveness of chemical weapons -- Sarin kills 90% of the people who come in contact.

The complacency around here is nauseating.

MHG

I know WWIII is your fantasy, but like most of your fantasies, it makes about as much sense as the average comic book.

[Broncos_OTM]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

And there it is in black and white.

that was 16 yes from republicans and 9 yees from democrats.not to mention the guy who's is clanging around hissword is tthe president... who is a democrat.

[Broncos_OTM]

Originally Posted by W*GS

If he did, he'd have to STFU.

you sir are a troll. Instead of any counter argument , you bring insults. Do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

[barryr]

So when Syria's government was torturing and shooting and killing for like 2 years, there was little outcry, but oh no, maybe they used chemical weapons to kill, so now the U.S. needs to act? So if they had just kept mowing down people with rifles we could continue to pretend nothing was happening? This is what happens when you have a president with no experience with military or with dealing with foreign countries, other than making speeches for how sorry he was for actions done before most were even alive. Again, the world laughs at this president and his bumbling admin.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Broncos_OTM

you sir are a troll. Instead of any counter argument , you bring insults. Do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

Anyone who takes gaffe seriously needs a lobotomy.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I know WWIII is your fantasy, but like most of your fantasies, it makes about as much sense as the average comic book.

Fantasy? Tell that to the survivors at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[mhgaffney]

It's looking more and more like the intercepted cable was passed to the US by Israel -- i.e., Mossad. The fact the intelligence assessment claims this as US intel calls into question the integrity of the entire assessment.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-int...-syria/5348542

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Fantasy? Tell that to the survivors at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Why not the survivors of Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg...?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Broncos_OTM

that was 16 yes from republicans and 9 yees from democrats.not to mention the guy who's is clanging around hissword is tthe president... who is a democrat.

Since I'm not a dem, why would I care?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by barryr

So when Syria's government was torturing and shooting and killing for like 2 years, there was little outcry, but oh no, maybe they used chemical weapons to kill, so now the U.S. needs to act? So if they had just kept mowing down people with rifles we could continue to pretend nothing was happening? This is what happens when you have a president with no experience with military or with dealing with foreign countries, other than making speeches for how sorry he was for actions done before most were even alive. Again, the world laughs at this president and his bumbling admin.

No less than they laughed at Bush for his. Of course, throw in Bush's drunken performance at the Olympics and the embarrassment quotient goes way up. Or how about his Merkel massage moment? Obama is not a great president by any means, but at least he's managed to stay sober.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Fantasy? Tell that to the survivors at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Like I said, comic books.

You want to know who the Japanese people should blame for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The emperor of Japan who refused to surrender.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Like I said, comic books.

You want to know who the Japanese people should blame for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The emperor of Japan who refused to surrender.

You're going to confuse and mystify Gaffney by quoting historical facts.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

You're going to confuse and mystify Gaffney by quoting historical facts.

Yep. Not only did he refuse to surrender, he was having children trained as suicide bombers.

[W*GS]

Japan's Longest Day (aka "Nihon no ichiban nagai hi"), 1967.

Good movie.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Japan's Longest Day (aka "Nihon no ichiban nagai hi"), 1967.

Good movie.

Good mythology.