Syria: US Involvement

A question...

If the Chinese and Russians want the US to stay out of Syria (because they have interests there), and they are part of the UN which is suppose to enforce the Geneva Convention (no chemical, biological weapons on the battle field), then why don't they settle this conflict for their own interests? Why do they wait for NATO, the UN, and others to step in before doing anything...if anything?

Still... we have never officially used chemical weapons against our own people, and certainly not against American civilians, rebellious or otherwise.

Nah, you used nuclear weapons on your own soldiers instead. And the CIA kidnapped US civilians to experiment on them with various drugs. :sick:

Rickie The Grey wrote: The US is not the words police force.

Everyone keeps saying this until it's their country losing citizens to gov't attacks.

steamboat28 wrote:

Rickie The Grey wrote: The US is not the words police force.

Everyone keeps saying this until it's their country losing citizens to gov't attacks.

20 people were aledgedly attacked by gass. How many were killed by conventional weapons? WMD is the same//excuse for invading their neighbor. Put that in perspective. More people are killed more violently all over the world, without gass.


Is the government of Syria so stupid they would givve the US the excuse (WMD) we need to attack them? ..

The US is being a bully. Stay out of our way or your are next. Oppose us and we will make you pay. Attack us and we will get you no matter how long it takes. Power is power. The winner is right. Don't oppose us.

We will, with UN support, do a punnishing attack, killing more than 20 people. A statment will be made. Iran is next. Wait and see. I hope I am wrong.

Having said that, pray for peace on earth. Meditate on peace and send loving thouughts to those you think need them the most. Good vibes make a difference if we unite our thoughts for a common cause.

Rickie The Grey wrote: 20 people were aledgedly attacked by gass. How many were killed by conventional weapons?

Where did you get 20 from?

"Opposition and medical sources gave a death toll of 322 to 1,729, and said that none of them had physical wounds. According to the activist network Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), which gave the lowest estimate of 322 killed, 46 of the dead were rebel fighters."

We certainly do not seem to know how the chemical agent's got released or by whom yet. The (relevant) problem with WMD is they get high numbers from a single event, and are usually indiscriminate.

Phortis Nespin wrote: A question...

If the Chinese and Russians want the US to stay out of Syria (because they have interests there), and they are part of the UN which is suppose to enforce the Geneva Convention (no chemical, biological weapons on the battle field), then why don't they settle this conflict for their own interests? Why do they wait for NATO, the UN, and others to step in before doing anything...if anything?

It might not make good business sense for them to stop the conflict.

An interesting hypothetical is; who is worse, the person who fuels the violence with no interest in stopping it, or the person who gets involved in violence to try and stop the violence.

ren wrote: Nah, you used nuclear weapons on your own soldiers instead. And the CIA kidnapped US civilians to experiment on them with various drugs. :sick:

Ok, let's see... First of all, I personally did not use nuclear weapons on anyone. I am not my country in its totality. If some asshole in the British government were responsible for some unsanctioned bit of torture or murder, would you like me phrasing statements to you like "you tortured [or killed] those people."? Phrasing things this way just makes you appear needlessly truculent.

Secondly, I have no idea what you're referring to, about the U.S. using nuclear weapons on its own soldiers. At any rate, even if I did know what you meant, and it had any validity to it, those would still be soldiers, not civilians like in the Syrian consideration.

Thirdly, whenever the CIA or anyone else in a position of power in the U.S. kidnaps American citizens for any purpose whatsoever, that is unconstitutional, morally repugnant, and definitely not done officially. I think this is covered quite adequately by my statement that, "Perhaps some very few of us have used them, under cover of darkness, so to speak, and we hold such rogue elements accountable whenever we can."

If you're going to respond to what I've written, I kindly request that you please at least write in a way that sounds like you've fully read what I wrote, and aren't just lashing out in a knee-jerk "fuck America" sort of fashion. Thank you.

FraterDavid wrote:

ren wrote: Nah, you used nuclear weapons on your own soldiers instead. And the CIA kidnapped US civilians to experiment on them with various drugs. :sick:

Ok, let's see... First of all, I personally did not use nuclear weapons on anyone. I am not my country in its totality. If some asshole in the British government were responsible for some unsanctioned bit of torture or murder, would you like me phrasing statements to you like "you tortured [or killed] those people."? Phrasing things this way just makes you appear needlessly truculent.

Secondly, I have no idea what you're referring to, about the U.S. using nuclear weapons on its own soldiers. At any rate, even if I did know what you meant, and it had any validity to it, those would still be soldiers, not civilians like in the Syrian consideration.

Thirdly, whenever the CIA or anyone else in a position of power in the U.S. kidnaps American citizens for any purpose whatsoever, that is unconstitutional, morally repugnant, and definitely not done officially. I think this is covered quite adequately by my statement that, "Perhaps some very few of us have used them, under cover of darkness, so to speak, and we hold such rogue elements accountable whenever we can."

If you're going to respond to what I've written, I kindly request that you please at least write in a way that sounds like you've fully read what I wrote, and aren't just lashing out in a knee-jerk "fuck America" sort of fashion. Thank you.

I wasn't judging. Simply stated some simple facts. I used "you" after you used "we".

here: "we have never officially used chemical weapons against our own people, and certainly not against American civilians"

facts are:
-The US tested the effects of nuclear weapons on its own soldiers
-The US has kidnapped its own civilians so as to experiment on them with dangerous chemical compounds.

I happen to believe these two acts do not warrant the invasion of the US by some significantly more powerful country. I'm pretty sure most americans would agree with that.

A lot of fear during the Cold War. I'd guess those soldiers were volunteers, but I also have no doubt bad stuff happened. Hopefully we are growing as a race.

This whole derailment reminds me of Ron Maddison .