Jeremy Clarkson sums it up perfectly in his newspaper column today; The US, UK and other countries declare Assad a war criminal for his actions towards his own people(if he did it ?) and go after him direct, rather than raining missiles on Syria and Assad having moved anything important to new locations anyway!. If he's weakened by military stikes, the rebels will win and their leader likes to eat his opponents. What kind of country have you got then?. The coalition gives Assad a choice, If he loses his war with the rebels, the rebels will eat him, if he wins, he faces arrest and stands trial at the Hague for war crimes.
Take out Assad and work with more moderate members of the Syrian government for a peaceful solutuon. Otherwise, if there are cruise missiles fired at Syria, no doubt some will miss their targets and many innocents will be killed. It could turn into another Iraq and Afghanistan.
The problem with Bush, I think (and over here with Blair) was that the reason given for going to war was seemingly fabricated. There were no WMDs, despite this being the chief reason for going to war.
But there we're WMD's. Saddam already proved he had them by using them on his own people - much like what we see in Syria now.
Agreed. I always thought it laughable that everyone believed there were "no WMD's." Seriously? C'mon. Ok, even if that were true....we should have done nothing?
drjohncarpenter wrote:There are more questions than answers regarding Syria.
However, at the very least President Obama has chosen to Congressional approval before making a decision, unlike the heinous, unilateral actions of the previous regime, which began a war under false pretenses.
Sort like that great Progressive LBJ who provided false information to Congress regarding the Gulf of Tonkin incident in order to not look weak on communism in advance of the 1964 election.
Actually, not at all "sort like" the "great Progressive LBJ."
But if you want to live in fantasy-land, more power to ya!
. Dr. John Carpenter, M.D. Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!
brian wrote:Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction at the time the United States invaded Iraq.
...
Since Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of Mass destruction the United States shouldn't have went to war in Iraq.
It will rightly go into the history books as an unjust war and George Bush will be remembered as a bad president largely because of it.
Correct.
Bush will be seen by history as perhaps the very worst president in the history of the United States, and the fake war in Iraq (which killed more innocent women and children there than anyone else) but one reason why. Many of his other heinous acts will come to light when most of us (and them) are dead. Sadly, it won't matter, and whoever is in Washington then will resolve that "please be assured, this will never happen again."
. Dr. John Carpenter, M.D. Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!
brian wrote:Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction at the time the United States invaded Iraq.
...
Since Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of Mass destruction the United States shouldn't have went to war in Iraq.
It will rightly go into the history books as an unjust war and George Bush will be remembered as a bad president largely because of it.
Correct.
Bush will be seen by history as perhaps the very worst president in the history of the United States, and the fake war in Iraq (which killed more innocent women and children there than anyone else) but one reason why. Many of his other heinous acts will come to light when most of us (and them) are dead. Sadly, it won't matter, and whoever is in Washington then will resolve that "please be assured, this will never happen again."
Many would argue Bush did not run the show during the 2 terms. Cheney did.
"If The Songs Don't Go Over With The Crowd, We Can Always Do A Medley Of Costumes."
TCB-FAN wrote:Many would argue Bush did not run the show during the 2 terms. Cheney did.
Whatever Bush was, he was there, he approved what went down (both known and not known to the general public), and history will eventually have its day with him and all those other lying, stealing, murderous scoundrels who were with him. Too bad we'll all be ancient or deceased when that happens.
. Dr. John Carpenter, M.D. Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!
The problem with Bush, I think (and over here with Blair) was that the reason given for going to war was seemingly fabricated. There were no WMDs, despite this being the chief reason for going to war.
But there we're WMD's. Saddam already proved he had them by using them on his own people - much like what we see in Syria now.
The intelligence agencies in both the U.S. and U.K also said there we're chemical and biological weapens in Saddam's possesion. Saddam refused U.N. weapon's inspectors into Iraq. THAT alone violated the 1991 cease-fire agreement. THAT alone allowed the world led by U.S. and British forces to go in and take out Saddam.
The world played this "cat and mouse" game with Saddam for years - allowing him to get away with violating the 1991 cease-fire agreement and violate U.N. resolutions - 17 of them. Saddam would violate one and the U.N. would pass another. The cycle continued for 10 years.
RKS
The weapons we were led to believe were in existence were nuclear not chemical or biological, and that was simply incorrect.
There was certainly talk of the regime attempting to resurrect its nuclear weapons programme, but much was also made of the potential stockpile of biological and chemical weapons.
brian wrote:Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction at the time the United States invaded Iraq.
Everyone knows that to be true by now.
I don't believe the Bush administration were lying I think they just jumped the gun on going into Iraq.
The Bush administration had very poor judgment on Iraq and it has damaged the United States tremendously.
The United States were already involved in a war in Afghanistan and going into another war in Iraq cost too much and was too time consuming.
Since Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of Mass destruction the United States shouldn't have went to war in Iraq.
It will rightly go into the history books as an unjust war and George Bush will be remembered as a bad president largely because of it.
And Tony Blair along with him.
He recently wanted to arm the Syrian rebels to defeat Assad but its just been disclosed that whilst Blair was the UK PM, between the years 2004-2010, the British Government issued export licences to two companies, allowing them to sell Syria sodium fluoride, which is used to make sarin. The Government last night admitted for the first time that the chemical was delivered to Syria – a clear breach of international protocol on the trade of dangerous substances that has been condemned as ‘grossly irresponsible’. The sales were made at a time when President Bashar Assad was strongly suspected to be stockpiling the chemical weapons that have caused an international crisis.
I think the issue with Iraq is that their was a lack of honesty as to the reason given for going in. Had a case been put forward saying that Hussein wasn't complying with weapons inspections, or was doing X, Y and Z to his own people, then the way wouldn't be viewed as it is today. In the end, they weren't the reasons given - it was the "evidence" of the WMDs which turned out not to be true. So, now people view the war as one where they were "fooled" about why we went in, and that is why people are so wary about getting involved with the Syrian crisis.
The West builds up dictators, and then everyone freaks when they ACT like dictators. BUT, this time, nobody cares about these people. That's the impression I get. As though these children who were murdered aren't like our children. In the post-911 world, saying "you're an Arab" is a curse. It's true. In 2008, a woman told McCain "he's an Arab" about his opponent. McCain rose to Obama's defense: "No, no. That's not right. He's a good, decent family man."
Arabs are never good and decent, I guess. Or family people. They are not like "us." You cannot say this isn't a factor. (To be fair, he apologized. But it was instinct.)
rjm
Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4
"And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God." Aeschylus
"Treat me mean and cruel, treat me like a fool, but love me!"
brian wrote:Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction at the time the United States invaded Iraq.
Everyone knows that to be true by now.
Saddam Hussein himself was a weapon of mass destruction, and had to go. Everyone knows that to be true, too.
Perhaps you don't agree?
Nope. He used to be a very good friend of the U.S., but there needed to be an excuse to get in the region and control the oil. It's all about the money. Sadly, you bought the lie.
. Dr. John Carpenter, M.D. Stop, look and listen, baby <<--->> that's my philosophy!
The whole problem with the war on Iraq was the war on terrorism should have been fought in Pakistan and Afghanistan...a full on press by the military. Whether Iraq had the WMDs that the government claimed they did or not, the people that flew planes into the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, were clearly not in Iraq.
As for Syria, I am torn. I worry about them developing weapons to bring into the states, but I also think, that we need to have full support of the UN to do anything. If Obama is so persistent on taking action and he doesn't get support from the UN, he should take other actions like stop giving aid to countries across the world and focus on securing our borders. It's time that the US focuses on their issues at home.
TCB-FAN wrote:Assad now warns the U.S. that "there will be repercussions" should the U.S. goes ahead with the air strikes.
This is not looking good.
Can someone say "World War III " ?
What did you expect he would say? With the whole diplomatic circus going around right now I'm hoping this crisis will pass by. But still there will be a lot of suffering within Syria itself even if it will not become an international conflict.
TCB-FAN wrote:Assad now warns the U.S. that "there will be repercussions" should the U.S. goes ahead with the air strikes.
This is not looking good.
Can someone say "World War III " ?
Hardly. A terrorist attack is far more likely than Syria raging war on America. Putin might be somewhat nuts, but he's not stupid and going to wade into such a conflict either. He knows it would gain him nothing.
TCB-FAN wrote:Assad now warns the U.S. that "there will be repercussions" should the U.S. goes ahead with the air strikes.
This is not looking good.
Can someone say "World War III " ?
What did you expect he would say? With the whole diplomatic circus going around right now I'm hoping this crisis will pass by. But still there will be a lot of suffering within Syria itself even if it will not become an international conflict.
Indeed. I'm beginning to come to the conclusion there will be no missile strikes in the end, for better or worse.
It seems Putin has used some intelligence in ordering Assad to get rid of his chemical weapons which the Syrian Government they have accepted.
Now there needs to be an investigation as to why British companies (backed by the British Government) delivered sodium flouride (the main component of Sarin) to Syrian firm from 2004-2010.
The sales were made at a time when Assad was strongly suspected to be stockpiling the chemical weapons.
Bodie wrote:It seems Putin has used some intelligence in ordering Assad to get rid of his chemical weapons which the Syrian Government they have accepted.
Now there needs to be an investigation as to why British companies (backed by the British Government) delivered sodium flouride (the main component of Sarin) to Syrian firm from 2004-2010.
The sales were made at a time when Assad was strongly suspected to be stockpiling the chemical weapons.
If you'd know what's going on in the world, you'd not be asking this question.
There is no "boycott" when profit can be made.
Even (in the 1930's) Jewish American rich bankers financed Hitler because they thought he was going to fight Communist Russia and they would get back their (in 1918) confiscated properties.
Anyone thinking President Obama calls the shots is in for a surprise. The shots are called by the very rich. People who own large supermarket chains, people who own weapon factories, et cetera.
