quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Alright, when Saddam Hussain used chemical weapons against the Kurds, Bush 1 did a lot of talking but not much else.

Syria uses chemical weapons against its own people, granted they are rebels, Obama starts talking cruise missile strikes.

A tomahawk cruise missile comes in at $1.45 million per unit.

And what purpose are we doing this? Hell we bombed the shit out of North Vietnam, the Viet Cong, dont forget "Shock and Awe"

I am sick and tired of the US being the world's policeman. That "policeman" bullshit has every Muslim terrorist looking to meet Allah by blowing up as many Americans as possible.

There are currently 36 countries Americans are advised to not travel to. A couple because of drug related crime, but the rest because there are people in those countries that want to put an American's head on the wall of their den, with as many American heads to keep the first one company as they can get.

If Obama and congress wants to police anything, by god do something about the fucked up shit in this country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Syria uses chemical weapons against its own people

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

JLF, I agree, "Not our job Man!" Nothing good would come from being involved in Syria. Nothing. A lot of years of fighting and dying.
There's been a few (very disturbing) videos going around today on facebook of one of the rebel groups holding up the body of a young girl (8 to 10) who they decapitated, presumably christian.
These are the people Obama wants to help?
And on the Mark Levin radio show tonight there was a U.S. Air Force Retired Colonal M.D. flight surgeon on and he said in no uncertain terms that that video of a few weeks ago that "Washington" was using to try to rally people around was a fake by the rebels.
He said "none" of the people in it were exhibiting *any type of symptoms* of gassing or neurological/ chemical exposure!
Something is definately going on behind the scenes and from an article I read a few years back it "could" have something to do with a pipeline across Syria to the Mediterainian Sea.
It's very clear that "Washington" and not the American People are the only ones interested in intervening in Syria.
It's not our job to be interfering in foreign countries or handing out..."freedom." Freedom isn't, "dispensed."
If people in foreign countries want freedom then let them pick up a rifle and,...take it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
I'm very confused because Obama's a smart man. So why would he do something this stupid?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
I'm very confused because Obama's a smart man. So why would he do something this stupid?

Perhaps he's not that smart?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

4. Harvard doesn't admit dummies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
I'm very confused because Obama's a smart man. So why would he do something this stupid?

Perhaps he's not that smart?

No reason to believe that at all.

1. Like I said, his foreign policy has been brilliant till now.

2. His ability to use social media and the Internet is nothing short of amazing. He pioneered the use of crowdfunding in politics and took Howard Dean's crude use of social media further than anyone ever had. His use of social media was the main reason he was able to wrestle the Dem nomination away from Hillary when she was the obvious, foregone conclusion. Palin is the only other pol to use social media. She's very good at it but not in Obama's league.

3. He's very good at building coalitions. He's reached out to the Clintons and won them over after a bruising primary. He's used the Sec of State position to mend fences, getting Hillary and then Kerry there. He's united the Democratic Party, no easy thing to do.

4. Harvard doesn't admit dummies. Nor does the Law Review take dummies as editors.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
or he's a tool of others

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
Wasn't the main reason that nothing was done about Hussein gassing the Kurds over the fact that the CIA had sold him his WMDs under the Reagan presidency, so having words with him over that might have proved an embarrassment for the new President who'd spent the eight years prior to his election running the senile old fart's government for him?

quote:

The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the first use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts. It was signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925 and entered into force on 8 February 1928. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on 7 September 1929.[4] The Geneva Protocol is a protocol to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.
It prohibits the use of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices" and "bacteriological methods of warfare". This is now understood to be a general prohibition on chemical weapons and biological weapons, but has nothing to say about production, storage or transfer. Later treaties did cover these aspects — the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the first use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the first use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts.

Hell, our cops use chemicals and gasses of various sorts on us every day.

Not to mention self-defense products readily available at a grocer near you.

I do believe that my sons and I have, at one time or another, violated the CWC of 1993 with natural, man-made "offgassing."


_____________________________

What I support:

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

(in reply to Yachtie)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
Wasn't the main reason that nothing was done about Hussein gassing the Kurds over the fact that the CIA had sold him his WMDs under the Reagan presidency, so having words with him over that might have proved an embarrassment for the new President who'd spent the eight years prior to his election running the senile old fart's government for him?

You know what's horrible? Reagan did nothing illegal. Immoral? Yeah, but not really illegal.

Geneva Protocol of 1925

quote:

The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the first use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts. It was signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925 and entered into force on 8 February 1928. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on 7 September 1929.[4] The Geneva Protocol is a protocol to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.
It prohibits the use of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices" and "bacteriological methods of warfare". This is now understood to be a general prohibition on chemical weapons and biological weapons, but has nothing to say about production, storage or transfer. Later treaties did cover these aspects — the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

The key phrase being highlighted above. Technically, supplying Saddam with WMD wasn't illegal, and Saddam didn't do anything opposed to the Geneva Protocol by gassing his own citizens. Morally repugnant, of course, but not against the Geneva Protocols.

The Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 is what makes the production and use of chemical weapons illegal. 1993. It was negotiated in 1992.

I'm sure some of you will, but, don't misconstrue this as my advocating for Reagan's choice to give Saddam WMD. As I said, it was morally wrong. It wasn't, however, illegal.