Just google "false flag". The story is already out there that the use of chemical weapons in Syria was a false flag operation. Syria's defense minister is claiming this as well. Of course it doesn't matter whether it is or not. What matters is whether countries/people believe it's possible. And with the US reputation in the crapper, it's certainly easy enough to guess at what others are believing.so when doctors on the ground are treating people for foaming at the mouth they are not telling the truth? they treated 100's of people that had signs from nerve agents? just what are the u.n. people finding? search that.You obviously didn't look up what false flag operations are. Everything you described would still be the case regardless of whether the Syrian government, the Syrian rebels, or the European nations (in false flag operations) did the deed. No one (I guess) is doubting chemical weapons were used. What IS being suggested is that the people who used them did so under a false flag operation. (Again that's what being suggested, I personally have no idea or opinion and honestly find it hard to believe anybody these days.) A good example of this was in WW2 when German and American soldiers alike donned the others uniforms and infilitrated various operations. Standard "warfare" technique. sorry about that. i did a quick search and read a few pages quickly.
Hi… glad to see this as a topic.
It was last year or the year before that I wrote to the White House to please intervene in Syria. I actually received a response months later, stating the concern of the administration for human rights issues, which was my reason for writing. Today it all looks different, but the point is not lost. It was actually made by the introduction of now chemical atrocities, which could have been foreseen given the state of affairs.
I have supported the “Arab Spring” from its very beginning, as it is another Renaissance, albeit under different circumstances and in a different time and place. Reason, eventually, will win out. But there are two, or more, sides to a story.
I support the Arab Spring movements. I understand that not all rebels have freedom in mind. But most do. Two points on intervention, you decide, as I have to myself, since they are not that easy:
- Intervene, under U.N. control. Why? To stop genocide. War is one thing, two unequal parties fighting and one annihilating the other by whatever means is plain evil. We vowed, as a global community represented by the U.N., to never allow WWII atrocities ever again. For the sake of human rights, not political ones, Syria has to meet an opponent of equal or bigger size. — Outcome? Not sure. This is thinking purely based on human rights intervention.
- Let things play out as they will. The Civil War settled America, WWII settled Europe. The total destruction of the Middle East, letting the warring countries or opposing parties fuck each other over and over will eventually, eventually, bring about so much horror that the region will settle for some kind of peace. It will. This is certain. But when? At what cost?
I don’t know what to think. I certainly oppose any Western action based on our need for oil. If that’s the motivation you might as well support the devil. (Figure of speech, you know
What should happen? I really don’t know. If anything, yes, certainly intervene concerning chemical weapons. This is a U.N. human rights issue. No question on that.
Otherwise, I have no clue…
While Obama is gathering world support, the US Congress does nothing. When will the Congress act to help? I hope that the fighting can be stopped with a few hits to Bashar al Assad can really change the civil war course towards a quick settlement. But I doubt their 800 year long fight will end quickly. Oh those ophthalmologists!
I also disagree with getting into a war with Syria. It will economically break us beyond repair.
It will economically break us beyond repair.So it's a typical Obama policy!
Disgustingly similar to George W.'s policy with Iraq, etc.
Disgustingly similar to George W.'s policy with Iraq, etc. OccamWhile we're on the subject. How about Agent Orange? Should another country have been able to attack the US because it used a chemical weapon against an enemy and used it for 9 years, killing nearly half a million people? If not, why not? What's different? Lois
It will economically break us beyond repair.So it's a typical Obama policy!Ha-ha, maybe, but I hope our possible involvement doesn't escalate, though. Getting stuck in that war will seriously ***k us up. :shut:
While we’re on the subject. How about Agent Orange? Should another country have been able to attack the US because it used a chemical weapon against an enemy and used it for 9 years, killing nearly half a million people? If not, why not? What’s different?The difference Lois is that agent orange was a defoliant, not a nerve gas. We had stockpiles of nerve gas but didn't use it on a perceived enemy. Agent orange was used, and I think our Vietnam vets here can better explain it's effects, to defoilate the jungle in order to discover supply routes and enemy positions. The problem was in exposing our troops to the cancer causing chemical which was later found to cause birth defects in their children. This cost the government millions of dollars in health care benefits. Cap't Jack
One of the problems seems to be the conceptual and functional difference between chemical and standard weapons. The chemical ones allow widespread indiscriminant, prolonged killing. While Agent Orange did, as TVA, says, defoliate the jungle by killing the plants and trees, it also killed a great amount of crops so that many people died of starvation just as surely but more slowly than they would have by Saran.
One of the problems seems to be the conceptual and functional difference between chemical and standard weapons. The chemical ones allow widespread indiscriminant, prolonged killing. While Agent Orange did, as TVA, says, defoliate the jungle by killing the plants and trees, it also killed a great amount of crops so that many people died of starvation just as surely but more slowly than they would have by Saran. OccamYou're right Occam. Defoliation was only one of the two purposes of the toxin. It was sprayed over agricultural land to deprive the Vietnamese Army of it's food supply and drive the peasants into the cities. While the numbers fluctuated due to doctored reports, some half million Vietnemese starved to death as a result. So it had an indirect effect on civilians. Cap't Jack
I also disagree with getting into a war with Syria. It will economically break us beyond repair.And over a sectarian conflict at that...thinking this is one to sit on the sidelines and watch for a while? Perhaps this time the UN is better suited to resolve this conflict? A quagmire for certain. :-(