Posted on 04/16/2018 10:23:08 AM PDT by WisconsinRep
Please enlighten me on how Roger Stone is connected to Russia.
All the hand wringing over this is absurd so long as American lives aren't being lost.
Trump even gave them a heads-up with his appearance on tv to announce the strike so Syrians could leave and prepare.
It was all done for show to quiet hawks who were demanding Trump 'do something'.
If we see an escalation in chem and terror attacks it will prove some group or nation is trying to provoke a war.
If Trump gets sucked-in then we've got a problem.
Use of chemical weapons and nuclear weapons are verboten. This isn't about anything else. Surgical strikes to eliminate these where necessary is absolutely proper per all conventions and treaties.
WWI and II settled that issue. Not to strike would be the epitome of cowardice and irresponsibility.
People so damn ignorant of history should STFU in my humble opinion.
Don’t agree it was a mistake. The US response to assads launching WMD was proportional and appropriate.
As for Stone’s assertion that it didn’t make sense for assad to use them? Lots of things happen which don’t make sense.
I don’t think the neocons have had much sway since their badly managed Iraq occupation. Our current involvement in Syria, and other failed states, is limited and designed to prevent another 911.
How on earth would killing MORE people rescue Syria?Since the question is framed as "How on earth..." let me ask the question this way:
How many Jews would it have been acceptable to gas before the world is motivated to stop a crime against "humanity?"
The cry of "never again" was meant to set a line in the sand that some forms of warfare are unacceptable to a humane civilization. Using chemicals against people was decided by all to be one of them.
The question then becomes whether the powers of the world are: 1) willing to live up to the expectation, and 2) capable of acting to punish to send the message that "the earth" is serious about this.
So the answer to Hitchens' question might be that it might not "rescue Syria," but it reminds "the earth" that the red line of chemical warfare is still going to be defended.
If chemical weapons can be determined to have been used, it can be debated whether the Syrian government used it or rebel groups used it or disguised actors used it to frame another, but "the earth" cannot let that confusion serve to dissuade them from acting if the underlying fact is that chemical weapons were used. It's not on the governments who retaliate if they hit the wrong actor, it's on the participants of the conflict to police themselves in the rules of engagement and act accordingly.
If one side moves to frame the other, so be it if both sides feel the wrath of response. The message is still sent that chemical warfare will not be tolerated and it behooves all sides of a conflict to move to make sure to "the earth's" satisfaction that they are not prepared to cross that red line.
Original poster responds:There is absolutely no concrete proof of people being killed by chemical weapons etc. in Syria in the alleged attacks in recent years.
Its made up videos of alleged victims done by jihadists and spread by mainstream media followed by government officials claiming horrible things have happened.
Those who rant against Assad are allied with the MSM and their spreading of Al Qaeda jihadist lies about chemical attacks in Syria.
My reply:
Killed, non-lethally used, or faked?
My point still stands. If the world drew a red line at the use of chemical weapons, and a terrorist group fakes the use of weapons as a means of war, it's still on those who harbor the terrorists to be responsible for those acts.
Either deny the Jihadists safe passage, or be culpable for their acts as if you had done them yourself. It's the same principle as when an accomplice to a crime is charged with first degree murder when another actually pulled the trigger.
If Assad (or anyone else) doesn't want to be blamed, then they need to act to be above reproach. If the argument is that they are -- now, then is this a new behavior of convenience or have they demonstrated over enough of history to show that they are a maligned country? Should they have done more in the past to deflect assumptions of guilt on them now?
Keep in mind that I'm not talking about your "routine" despotic dictatorship, I'm talking about the use of chemical weapons. Did Syria at one time accept a cache of weapons, was Syria at one time forced to destroy discovered chemical weapons, or does Syria have a history of unilaterally rejecting chemical weapons?
What is Syria's level of culpability in being accused as a credible user of chemical weapons? Is it high enough to justify a response as a deterrent to others to not get involved at all with chemical weapons to avoid the perception of guilt?
If you're looking for someone who set off a bomb, who are you more likely to suspect, the person found with a box of matches or the person who carries nothing?
-PJ
His book about Hillarys crimes against women makes some pretty good points, but his nonsense that the Mossad killed Robert Maxwell, detracts from it.
What a stupid attitude. You don’t care about us killing innocents under false pretenses? Furthering the bogus Russia-is-our-enemy claims of the neocons? Fraying still more our relationship with Russia?
The dishonesty is probably the worst of all, but it is all bad.
You can’t possibly believe that Assad did the gassing—if any gassing at all actually took place—can you?
And most likely those were empty sheds by the time they were struck. Give enough notice to get the people out and the chemicals can be got out too.
I’m pretty sure I’m not the ignorant one on this thread.
As someone who is a Jew and is, of course, faithful to a different country than America (sarc/), I realize that Tucker Carlson makes a good point that we do not definitely know who did the gas attack in Syria; however, I am glad my President struck those Syrian gas stores because Assad threatned to use them against Israel and the neo-Nazis; e.g., the author of “The Turner Diaries,” expressed the hope that Syria would use them against Israel before he died of cancer. I do not want to see another holocuast on film or in real life.
The Mossad doesn’t represent the Jewish people.
Lets stop the name-calling.
So we hit their chemical weapons depots.
I don’t see where this is unnecessarily entangles us any more than we already were. It seems to me that we can still exit Syria. Only we are leaving them with a lot fewer chem weapons and have put the world on notice that if you use such weapons, you bring down the international community on you.
Roger is right, unfortunately. It was a fun ride while it lasted.
Haven’t you heard? Roger Stone is now a Russian agent/s
Yes, Assad and Russia would and have used chemical weapons and are killing for more innocents than we did. I see nothing wrong diminishing their capacity to kill more innocents by doing it again.
Stop listening to Alex Jones and reading Prison Planet. You make conservatives sound crazy.
Why would Assad use chemical weapons? To regain control of his country faster.
Why would he think he could get away with it? Because he has many times before with Uncle Vlady's help.
You are out to lunch. Assad was winning, we had said we were withdrawing. The evidence doesn’t begin to fit the neocon spin.
Try to use your critical facilities—if you have some—to think this through. This is just one more in a long line of false flags from the warmongers of the world—and those (hello, SA and Israel) who don’t want us to leave the region.
The ad hominem attack does nothing for your baseless position.
Guccifer is a GRU agent, Stone had repeated contacts and leaks from Guccifer. Q.E.D.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.