Syria......break it down for me ya'll!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ing-response-to-evidence-syria-used-chemical/

Okay.....Syria may have "crossed the line"? by using chemical weapons.
What side are we on? Are we on a side? Are we umpires like in Bosnia?

No shit Syria has chemical weapons - Iraq took them there just before the war in 2003. What exactly is our role in this anyway? Who is Syria fighting against again...themselves?

Damn, I'm out of the loop here. The only thing on my mind is what is the prediction for the white oak hard mast crop for Georgia in the fall? This will influence my deer hunting strategy in a major way!

Discuss.

Mid east country that has always hated the US. No decent laws, morals or people in general. We have no interest there. Saddam gasses 40K people and we were not justified going after him. I see not reason to go after the guy here. He has no WMD and the democrats believe that unless they have WMD its an "illegal war". No need to change the standard now just because its a different president.

So Obama is aping Bush and may get us in over our heads?
I do need the work, being a defense contractor....Obama is starting to win me over!

Have you heard the one about the rebel uprising? I hear it's a gas.

No, Syriasly.

Jumping Jack Flash, it's a gas, gas, gas......

Kill them all.

Read first, discuss after.

About those nerve gas attacks...

We don't want to run your country.
We want you to do it.
We just want you to do a better job.

Still peddling this shit to preserve Bush's integrity. You fucking retard.

Still refuting this without any evidence to the contrary? Who's the retard here?

Me for responding.

I'm not peddling anything to preserve Bushes integrity......I'm just reporting what I know from people like myself who actually participated.

BTW if you deploy chemical weapons and only kill six (count em' six) people you might want to find a better delivery system.

How can one have "evidence" that chemical weapons weren't moved to Syria? It's 9/11-truther, moon-landing-hoax type shit.

This is a great means of identifying those who have lost touch with reality.

People like yourself are halfwits. If this had a shred of truth to it, the Bush Administration and their cheerleaders would have been shouting it from the rooftops, there would be some evidence you could point to and at least one of the myriad of reports into the WMD clusterfuck would have agreed with your conclusion. As explained every time it's been suggested, the idea that the Iraqi regime would provoke a war to preserve their WMD capability and then just give them away when attacked by a superpower is so utterly, mind-bogglingly idiotic that it is difficult to imagine how anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size could believe it.

And before you start considering yourself an authority on Syria, you should reflect on the fact that you've just started a thread admitting total ignorance of a large-scale conflict that's been raging there for quite a long time now and in the news daily.

Syria has had chemical weapons since the 1970's so, no, they didn't get them from Iraq as they had them before Iraq did. Second of all, no, we don't know which side used them nor even if they were deliberately used. The rebels have been raiding government bunkers including ones where chemical weapons might have been stored but even if they didn't then buildings get hit with mortars and shells all the time there and it is possible that some retard just fired on the wrong setting off some munitions which were kept there.

In short, we really don't know what happened other than a few people tested positive for exposure and even that test supposedly has frequent false positives. There really isn't enough to go to war over especially if we can't even prove what happened. Lastly, please do retire that old conspiracy theory which claimed Saddam would give weapons to his hated enemies in Syria. It's baseless and more than a little dumb.

I believe he's referring to the Iraq war not the Syria war. If you're gonna be condescending at least proof read.

And before you get on your super-defensive panties in a twist, I agree with your point of view, just not your delivery.

One would think it difficult to unintentionally set off a chemical weapon 4+ times AND keep the casualties in any of those scenarios below 31. Rebellions depend on popular support which would more than likely dissipate quickly once chemical weapons entered the picture, intentionally or unintentionally (depending on the I/O spin).

To be fair, he's on about the Iraq war - which, iirc, he was actually at and for which I'm prepared to give him the element of doubt from personal civilian experience

It's a totally different scale, but I'm privy to a lot of information the UK Coalition could use to some effect against Labour, they don't use it though - there are any number of reasons such info is available to people on the ground but never makes it way further up the chain - usually incompetence, occasionally for political reasons.

He's referring to the source of Syria's chemical weapons.

Which would be, in his opinion, Iraq. Quit playing stupid before everyone starts thinking you're not joking.

This is someone deluded enough to think that:

a) Saddam had WMD
b) Saddam moved them to Syria just as he might need to use them
c) this is common knowledge but the Bush Administration decided not to mention it in the face of political and diplomatic uproar at home and abroad.

And you think I'm playing stupid and not sufficiently crediting his authority. Get a grip.

Perhaps (just speculating here) Saddam moved any and all chemical weapons to Syria because he knew we were going to steamroll and occupy Iraq? In other words he didn't want to get caught with that hot potato?

He wasn't stupid. For all his bluster he knew Iraq had zero chance against the coalition. So knowing that, would it be smart to have any evidence in country when (not if but when) we eventually occupied the country?

Using chemical weapons against us would have been instant suicide and he knew it. Not at all worth the risk IMO.

If he had no chance and knew the country was being steamrollered, why in the fuck was it any extra "risk" to him to be caught with illicit weapons or even to use said weapons? There's no upside to moving them to Syria for him. It's a manifestly illogical conspiracy theory with zero supporting evidence dreamed up by people who are unable to countenance the fact that they were lied to.

I knew your "better poster" thread was bullshit.

You ignorant fuckers can have the place. Lights on, lights off, I could care less.

If it's just speculation on your part, then I retract my earlier post.

Don't say you 'know' stuff and then turn it into speculation later

Sometimes I think it's speculation that ANY of us "know stuff."

Or maybe actually use a chemical weapon rather than smoke canisters?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the only evidence so far is some trace elements in soil samples.

How is that an example of Wordin being an asshole poster? Is he not allowed to disagree with you?

I don't care if Syria is using them.

The United States shouldn't be lifting a finger to help the rebels who themselves are terrorists and simply want to replace one oppressive government with a oppressive government that they, the rebels, run. Fuck that.

Let them kill each other.

Who are you arguing with? I even stated above that I agree with you.

All I said was you slipped up and said something stupid, which you did. Deal with it.

Now that's a fact you can count on