Attack on Syria is it justified ?
- Thread starter Mr Deeds
- Start date
This is just a little dishonest. The UN never did authorize it, and in fact objected, which is precisely why Canada stayed out.
Moreover, the countries the US had onside these days all say that that were duped into joining by intentional misrepresentation by the US as to the quality of the intelligence.
I actually believe that Bush was sincere and really expected Iraq had a WMD program, but he lied to congress, lied to the UN, and lied to America's allies about the quality of the information he had.
In reality he had a hunch. But he told everyone he had solid, indisputable proof.
UN says no, NATO says no, UK says no, the French are back peddling (a national tradition)....
I'm going to go with No.
Any chance a stripped down resolution get's 60 votes in the Senate?
OTB
I'm going to go with No.
Any chance a stripped down resolution get's 60 votes in the Senate?
OTB
Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi.Funny meme
But since rebels started the attack on the Syrian government, isnt Assad allowed to defend his country from them, in the same way Obama would be allowed to defend America if anarchists tried to take over the USA??!
Yet regime change in Iraq was stated US policy since when? 1992? and upheld during Clinton years?
So what was that regime change policy based on? BS? made up shit? fake intel?
Throughout the 90s what was conventional wisdom on Saddam and Iraq?
Which prominent Democrat politicians voted yes to the war on Iraq? Oh Hillary was duped? is that what you are arguing?
You were discussing the international support, and congressional support, for accomplishing that with an actual shooting war and invasion.
That support was obtained by the US President lying to congress, lying to the UN, and lying to allied nations, about the quality of intelligence available.
Those blatant lies are why there is a credibility gap today, why no one is willing to believe what the US says about Syria.
No Fuji you narrowed the discussion to this constraining little box you constructed. You, and many like you, forget the whole context, which i as usual am left to point out to once again demonstrate how limited and self serving your perspective is ..... you clearly lose this one bee-yatch.
i don't think that was his question. it was bombing civilians with conventional bombs versus bombing with chemical weapons.
I made the point that after being blatantly lied to over Iraq, no one is going to accept a "just trust us" from the US again.
You responded with a number of falsehoods which I corrected.
We can happily return to the thread topic now, which is that there is no way of knowing for sure who used those chemical weapons. Not with the information we have so far.
I would go with not yet.
But certainly a war crimes prosecutor should be engaged to lead the investigation into who did this, and if that investigation turns up that it was clearly Assad then he and his close associates should personally become the target of an intense bombing campaign.
No. No they were not. Nor were they exporting bananas, singing Broadway musicals, or doing any number of other things that have nothing to do with terrorism. What, if anything, is your point?
hahahahahahaha are you intentionally this moronic? those are excuses, typical cya bullshit by those who want to distance themselves from a failure they authorized. the fact remains that i presented to you long standing USG policy. and i presented to you actual votes taken by the UN and The US Congress. forgetting these facts or spinning the way you do is disingenuous.
Those poor asset managers! Working tirelessly, selflessly for the universal good, not a thought for themselves. Why, when the evil liberal congress forced them to repackage junk mortgages or else they would shoot the puppy, I wept.
I was going to give a point-by-point rebuttal to the rest of the derp you spouted in that post, but you are drifting into acutus-level logic here and frankly, it ain't worth the effort.
The UN never authorized it.
Congress did, but only because of the blatant lies. Most allied nations that supported it only did so because they were lied to.
The failure occurred when it was revealed that the US simply made hi the claims that there were WMD in Iraq.
The relevance here is that lying has eliminated any trust in what the US says now about Syria, or worse, Iran.
In fact the Bush era lying about Iraq is one of the big obstacles to dealing with the actual threat from Iran today, and now Syria too.
Congress did, but only because of the blatant lies. Most allied nations that supported it only did so because they were lied to.
The failure occurred when it was revealed that the US simply made hi the claims that there were WMD in Iraq.
The relevance here is that lying has eliminated any trust in what the US says now about Syria, or worse, Iran.
In fact the Bush era lying about Iraq is one of the big obstacles to dealing with the actual threat from Iran today, and now Syria too.
do you understand the difference between an buy side asset manager and lets say a mortgage backed securities salesman to keep it simple?
do you understand the fact that wall street doesn't just create products for the sake of creating products. they create products which they can sell to investors/ asset managers.
do you know the investment return requirements and eligible asset allocation constraints of a defined benefit pension plan? and what these do to the risk seeking profile of an asset manager?
pls answer these so i know what level of expertise I am dealing with here Nobody.
But Fuji Obama healed all of that. He repaired Americas standing in the world. He rebuilt the trust. He got a Nobel prize for crying out loud.
When did the lying about IRAQ having wmd start? when was US policy for Iraq regime change instituted? You are caught, again, in wholesale narrowing to suit your little tiny argument.
While no doubt some people do feel this way. For the ten thousand and first time, there is a significant and important difference between "lying" and something proving not to have been the case. Again the Russians and every major Western Power believed that Iraq still had chemical weapons.
