By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
TheJimbo1234 on 03 September 2013
Edit Thread
the2real4mafol said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
the2real4mafol said:
TheJimbo1234 said:

It has nothing to do with Iran - Iran have actually stated that whom ever used chem weapons needs to be punished.

Thing is, chemical weapons are potentially far worse wmd than nuclear due to size and ease of production. The USA realise that no one should ever be allowed to use such things as once it goes unpunished, the lid is off and all hell will break loose.

Except the US of course. It seems only they can get away with using such weapons. Remember agent orange or napalm? 

Napalm is an incendiary, not a chemical weapon, and agent orange was used for defoliage and never meant to be used on people. If they wanted to use chem weapons, they would have dropped VX gas. That would have won them the war easily....but been probably the worst genocide since the concentration camps.

With all the suffering they caused back in Vietnam, they really should of backed away from other countrie's affairs years ago. It's like conflict has become a drug to American presidents and congress, they feel they need at least one war to feel acomplished. Nothing else matters to them. The huge public opposition at home and abroad never matters to them and despite the economy being in such a state that don't seem to matter to them either.

Syria is no one's business. The civil war will end itself if it had the chance. And so what if Assad forces used chemical weapons? Currently it is nothing more than an allegation and is not really a reason for an escalated war even if it happened. War used to be a final resort, it should be treated as such. War also used to be a reaction to an actual threat. Syria is not a threat to the United States, it's more of a threat to itself than anything. And to make it worse if the US went in, it would fight along with Al Qaeda and other rebels despite what is happening in Afghanistan. it makes no sense.

Finally, what if Assad's opposition used chemical weapons? I'm sure war would escalate anyway.   

How is this like Vietnam?

What I am scared by is how everyone thinks all wars are the same. Eh? What the hell happened to looking at individual cases and analysing them? Vietnam was a terrible war, but it was all about one state invading another. Yes, it was highly complex, but as always, America ignored these facts and jumped in there to defend the "good guys".

Now with this, the world has stood back have they not? Everyone has learnt after Iraq and Libya that some coutnries are highly volatile and there is no "right side" to be on. So why are you acting like they are getting involved straight away?

Now have you not read anything about chemical weapons? Do you not know what a world ban nor what a wmd is? I outlined this in my first post, yet you have ignored it. Why?

So now Obama is fighting to end the civil war?! Erm what the hell? This conflict has proven one thing - Western news is fucking useless as 99% of people seem to be utterly misinformed. He has clealry said numerous times that they are not fighting to helps rebels or end the war. He is attacking Assad for using wmd/commiting war crimes/breaking a world agreement to keep such foul weapons locked away and never to be used. 

The world thinking chemical weapons are ok to use is a threat to everyone. The reason no one uses them is fear of this happening - the world stomping all over you for being one sick nation.

 

As I've mentioned before to others...and I'm amazed I have to spell this out every time; if the rebels have chemical weapons...then holy shit help us as we are fucked. This means that Assad has lost control of his assets, the rebels have also got their hands on serious deployment capabilites, and of course, finally have wmds. Now if that is not reason enough to take out the other 1000 tons of chemical weapons, then I don't know what is.