@heckofajobbrownie said:

I'm not saying Putin didn't say it. I'm saying don't get your news from World Net Daily. It's not news.

We (our intelligence agencies) think we have proof that these weapons were used. We have tissue samples, video, doctors testimony, our own people on the ground, etc. That is how we're making that determination. This can all be questioned, of course, but we're hardly in a position to do it.

The point you were raising is one I don't agree with. You were suggesting that it doesn't matter which way you die in a war, whether someone chops off your head or gases your village. I simply don't agree. Chemical and biological weapons and nuclear weapons are uniquely deadly and must not be allowed, ever. People who use them must be confronted by the international community.

That's been American and international policy for decades.

No actually that's not the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make is that deadly chemical agents are more humane than being hacked to pieces whilst alive. I don't see why THAT'S the imaginary red line. And I'm not sure America, the only country who has ever used nuclear weapons on other humans has the right to play pretend indignant over it. If we're not going to directly intervene we need to stay the fuck out of it. Arming a thousand future bin ladens is a fucking terrible idea.

My other point is that if we're going to get involved in a terrible brutal war it would really serve our best interests as citizens to get involved in Mexico because the things they're up to down there violate every human right there is and these hardened and soulless killers can cross our borders basically at will.

You'd think they would know whether or not chemical weapons were used by Assad or not.

Say, those the same weapons that were carted from Iraq in trucks?

@the-cysko-kid said:

I'm not saying Putin didn't say it. I'm saying don't get your news from World Net Daily. It's not news.

We (our intelligence agencies) think we have proof that these weapons were used. We have tissue samples, video, doctors testimony, our own people on the ground, etc. That is how we're making that determination. This can all be questioned, of course, but we're hardly in a position to do it.

The point you were raising is one I don't agree with. You were suggesting that it doesn't matter which way you die in a war, whether someone chops off your head or gases your village. I simply don't agree. Chemical and biological weapons and nuclear weapons are uniquely deadly and must not be allowed, ever. People who use them must be confronted by the international community.

That's been American and international policy for decades.

It's not a matter of how you'd rather die. (And death by chemical weapons is a gruesome affair, so I'm not sure what's so preferable about it.) It's that a guy with an axe isn't a weapon of mass destruction.

States have an obvious and legitimate interest in banning the use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

Also I think you're forgetting the part where our precious rebels also used chemical weapons

http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/06/putin-claims-proof-syrian-rebels-used-chemical-weapons/

It's international law, and has been for decades. I don't have a problem with punishing anyone who thinks about starting the world down that road. It leads to a pretty awful place.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Here are some guns. Now go shoot some dudes from Hezbollah.

That's as much of the plan as I can make sense of.

The only other part is political - that Obama drew a "red line" and the intelligence agencies think Assad crossed it, so he has to do something. And giving the rebels light arms is the least he can do that counts as a response while not getting truly involved.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/us-troops-conducting-military-exercises-syrian-border-19441253

And more American troops are being readied for....Egypt.

That's as much of the plan as I can make sense of.

The only other part is political - that Obama drew a "red line" and the intelligence agencies think Assad crossed it, so he has to do something. And giving the rebels light arms is the least he can do that counts as a response while not getting truly involved.

a nice visit with Assad back in the Bush years. Assad was the dem's hero, as well as Chavez,

and Castro.

go figure, ....

If the rebels win, what good does it do to allow a new Islamic state to be created, as Iran was back

in the day? Yeah, it really helped to get rid of that really bad western "friendly" dictator in Iran.

History will repeat itself?

but who cares? If they win we really didn't do enough to be considered an ally and when, they lose we'll be considered the enemy.

By the way 1 of the reasons for the insignificant amount of help we provided in libya was because Khadafi threatened to go door to door drag the rebels out and kill them. Anybody remember that the rebels did exactly that?

WSS

WSS

@the-cysko-kid said:

Yeah. Total chaos and religious zealotry are so much better.

@the-cysko-kid said:

Ive been saying all along that the rebels are very very bad and its all bad business to arm them. We need to actually back Iran of all people and crush them. If people think we or Syria is better off with them in charge than Assad they are fucking simpletons. I'd rather have a brutal dictator any day than religious zealots and maniacs in charge of peoples lives.

arming Mexican drug cartels to cause unrest.

I suppose these terrorists are the ones Obamao is considering

given asylum to here....