Syria's chemical weapons

Granny says Obama wantin' to keep Syria's chemical weapons outta the hands of terrorists...

U.S. plans for possibility that Assad could lose control of chemical arms cache
17 Dec.`12 - As Bashar al-Assad’s hold on power steadily weakens, U.S. officials are increasingly worried that Syria’s weapons of mass destruction could fall into the hands of Islamist extremists, rogue generals or other uncontrollable factions.

 

Granny says, "Dat's right - either poop or get off the pot...

Lavrov: ‘Either secure Syria's chemical weapons, or arm its rebels’
24 December, 2012, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov tells RT that Western powers' habit of dividing terrorists between "bad and acceptable" could have lasting consequences for the whole world.

 

obama can't now go into Syria with troops to find weapons of mass destruction after reeming Bush for going into Iraq over weapons of mass destruction.

 

I don't know... This guy's pretty powerful... You'd be surprised some of the things he can do. Well above and beyond things Bush did even things he reemed Bush about... Like the torture... Obama didn't close Gitmo he RENOVATED it.

 

So Obama wants to keep Assad's chemical weapons out of the hands of terrorists..

Maybe helping terrorists overthrow Assad and take over the country by giving them weapons money and diplomatic support wasn't the best strategy for that goal...

Ooops.. Nice One Obama.. Yeah how do we keep Assad's chemical weapons away from terrorists.. Let's try helping terrorists take over the country, that might work... Ooops.. No more Assad and now terrorists took over the country and its arsenel.. Plus they've got a new safe haven. Any other ideas?

Kind of like the brilliant plan to bring peace to the Middle East by fomenting violence there.

How do we bring peace? Hmm have you tried selling them some more weapons?

 

Will Assad deploy the Samson option?...

Israel warns of possible pre-emptive chemical weapons strike in Syria
January 27, 2013, Israel could launch a pre-emptive strike to stop Syria's chemical weapons from reaching Lebanon's Hezbollah or al Qaeda inspired groups, officials said Sunday.

 

Terrorists are only terrorists if they are fighting against us. When they are doing something we like they are freedom fighters and good guys. We were giving them all sorts of good stuff. Obama's buddies over at Al Qaeda are now freedom fighters. Forgive and forget right? But you better give up your freedoms, because those freedom fighters at any moment can become our enemies again!

 

Syria, rebels blame each other for alleged chemical attack...

Alleged chemical attack kills 25 in northern Syria
19 Mar.`13 - Syria's government and rebels accused each other of launching a deadly chemical attack near the northern city of Aleppo on Tuesday in what would, if confirmed, be the first use of such weapons in the two-year conflict.

See also:

US: Syrian rebels didn't use chemical weapons
19 Mar.`13 WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration flatly rejected a claim by Syrian President Bashar Assad's government that the U.S.-backed Syrian rebels used chemical weapons on Tuesday, calling it a desperate attempt by a beleaguered regime to distract attention from its own ledger of atrocities in two years of civil war.

 

Sounds like a job fer Hans Blix...

UN to Launch Syria Chemical Weapons Probe
March 21, 2013 — U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon announced Thursday he will send a mission to Syria to investigate allegations of chemical weapons use.

 

Evidence found Syria crossed the red-line...

Envoy claims evidence of Syrian chemical weapons
Sat, Apr 13, 2013 - Western nations have “hard evidence” that chemical weapons have been used at least once in the Syrian war, but a UN investigation is now unlikely to get into the country, diplomats said on Thursday.

 

We supported Saddam's use of Chemical weapons against Iran and his own people not too long ago. We have no moral authority to tell others not to do what we ourselves condone.

 

Do not confuse lack of action with support.

And in 1988, the US did indeed vote in support of UNSC Resolution 612, which condemned Iraq for the use of Chemical Weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.

It is so lovely when you try and spout propaganda, and have it fail when faced with reality, is it not?

http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/SC612.pdf

 

I am suprised that you would speak so flipantly but also that you do not know this. Of course Reagan condemned the use of poison gas publically. Actions however, speak louder than words.

Dispite having knowledge of Saddam's use of poison gas, the Reagan administration increased funding to Saddam the following year.

To quote Bush Jr. " We are not only going after the terrorists but he supporters of terrorism".

Giving funding to regimes that engage in terror is "supporting terrorism"

 

Errr, this was in 1988. President Reagan was not even President the next year, he had left office by that time.

Complete and utter reality failure.

 

What difference does it make to my initial comment

Regardless, I stated that Reagan knew about the Chemical weapons and provided funding after the fact. Reagans public condemnation of the practice happened prior to 1988.

You are the one spouting out the date of 1988. Get some reading comprehension.

And further:

http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/histpoli/iraq.htm

The Senate wanted to cut off funding to Iraq due to his use of chemical weapons and the Reagan admin killed the bill.

You have no clue what you are talking about. Stick to military equipment.

 

Here are some of the events leading up to Reagan's veto of the "prevention of Genocide act" in which Reagan figured that Saddam would respond better to a carrot (continued funding) than a stick.

This is not just "joe blow" speaking. This is a Paul Galbraith, a US policy advisor, US Ambasidor, and professional staff member for the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from 1979 to 1993.

After traveling to Iraq and seeing Saddam's work first hand he rushes back to the US and writes the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988" which not only proposes to cut funding to the terrorist but also suggest comprehensive sanctions.

This bill unanimously passes the Senate. What does Reagan do ? vetoes the bill.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/battle.html

This is one of numerous examples of supporting terror. Would you like 5 or 6 others ?

Im not saying we did not have our reasons but what I am saying is that it is a joke to stand up on the world stage and claim "moral high-ground".

Our government did not show any concern for the Kurds, East Timorese, the people of El Salvador when genocide was being committed. Not only did our government not show concern, they were supporting the people committing the horrible attrocities and in some cases training them. "School of the America's"

I think we are much better these days but the world does not forget the past so quickly. There is a reason why they laugh at us and call us hypocrites when we claim moral high ground.

 

Sorry, sliding argument fail here.

You keep shifting the claims and your backing data, until basically all you are saying is "The US are bad guys". So it is hereby flushed.

 

Granny says, "Dat's right - time to send in the drones...

U.S. now believes Syria has used chemical weapon, but no response is imminent
4/25/2013 WASHINGTON -- U.S. intelligence has concluded "with some degree of varying confidence" that the Syrian government has twice used chemical weapons in its fierce civil war, the White House and other top administration officials said Thursday.

 

Granny says, "Here we go again - talkin' `bout Syria not crossin' dat red line...

Red line: Obama cautious on Syria chemical weapons
April 26, 2013 WASHINGTON (AP) -- Proceeding cautiously, President Barack Obama insisted on Friday that any use of chemical weapons by Syria would change his "calculus" about U.S. military involvement in the 2-year-old civil war - but said too little was known about a pair of likely sarin attacks to order aggressive action now.

See also:

US has a range of military options in Syria
April 26, 2013 - U.S. commanders have laid out a range of possible options for military involvement in Syria, but they have made it clear that any action would likely be either with NATO backing or with a coalition of nations similar to the NATO-led overthrow of Libyan dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi in 2011.

 

Granny says Obama backin' off red-line warnin'...

Obama cautious on Syria ‘red line’
Sun, Apr 28, 2013 - AP, WASHINGTON : US President Barack Obama is insisting that any use of chemical weapons by Syria would change his “calculus” about US military involvement in the two-year-old civil war — but said too little was known about a pair of likely sarin attacks to order aggressive action now.

See also:

Iraqi PM Warns of Syrian Sectarian Violence Spreading Across Region
April 27, 2013 - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has referred to fighting in Syria as a possible cause of sectarian violence in Iraq.

 

Assad a bit cagier than Saddam was...

Pattern seen in alleged chemical arms use in Syria
28 Apr.`13 — The instances in which chemical weapons are alleged to have been used in Syria were purportedly small in scale: nothing along the lines of Saddam Hussein's 1988 attack in Kurdish Iraq that killed thousands.

 

U.S can just shut up they ruined the middle east for oil.

They killed Gaddafi which wasnt a dictator they were just jealous that he was producing his own oil and selling for gold.

U.S Imperialism made many lies on people for example Iraqian Dictator Saddam Huseyin has pictures of he shaking hands with Ambessadors of U.S and its allies ( U.N , NATO )

They picked a dictator they wanted and putted him in command till they get all the oil. But things didnt turned out like they expected so they killed him. It was a right thing but who are you to put a dictator in Iraq and kill it ?

Gaddafi was a different situation . Libya had more democracy under Gaddafi's command more then U.S and U.K's fake democracies.
They were jelous that Gaddafi was trading oil for gold and making the country better so Imperialism strikes to Libya and kills Gaddafi for more oil.

Syria is the samething Asad is not a dictator . What kind of Dictator can travel with his bike with his people ? U.S and NATO UN just triggered some people and started a civil war and always makes lies about Asad to convince the world that Asad is a dictator.

If you're going to compare dictators the real dictator is The Ruling party of Turkey A.K.P the whole goverment is dictatored.

One of the lies that U.S made up to convince Asad is a dictator is chemical weapons and why should U.S mind if Syria manufactures Chemical Weapons ? They say its banned but i dont see U.S barging right in when Israel produces nukes chemical weapons such as Russia China and their self the U.S so its ok for theese nations but not Syria ?

Its a lie , that Syria will use chemical weapons. Even if they use it who are you to barge in U.S !

 

You mean your brain was flushed down the toilet in a wave of denial. Then rather than respond to the facts you opt to demonize.

Fact: Saddam Hussain had gassed his own people numerous times. Reagan, while publically condemning this action was still giving large amounts money and support to Saddam.

After "The Prevention of Genocide Act", which proposed to cut funding to Saddam, got unanimous approval in the Senate Reagan vetoed it and kept funding Saddam.

After the Elections Bush Sr. increased funding to Saddam.

Our support for various regimes has little to do with whether or not they use poison gas, violate human rights, or commit genocide.

 

Actually, the President did not Veto it, this bill never even made it out of the Senate.

And a few things that make your statement totally untrue.

First, if approval was unanimous, then they would have laughed at a veto, would they not?
And finally, if as popular as you claim, why not even an attempt to override a veto? The reason why Congress has the power to override vetoes is so they can pass legislature the President does not like.

You talk about "unanimous approval". Pure unadulterated bull(*)(*)(*)(*), because if that was true they would have passed it, veto or no veto.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d100:HE00552:

*Wanders away, mumbling "research".*