|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisements has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Let's say Israel hadn't bombed the Syrian nuclear program into oblivion decades ago, or the world lets Iran develop nuclear capability and they ship some suitcase nukes to Assad, or North Korea sneaked some in. In any case, what I am posing is what if Assad had tactical nukes. Now, instead of chemical weapons he uses these "low-yield" nuclear devices on the opposition. They devastate about a 2-mile radius and the lethal fall-out will probably stay inside Syria's borders, depending on winds.
SO, should we let Assad use these weapons for the same reasons we seem to want to let him use chemical weapons?
Should we let Assad? (???) Who's letting him do what he's already doing? USA and everybody else may be undecided on how to deal with Syria. But Israel isn't. Israel say they gonna stay on the map! No bluff!! Wish we all know what to do in cases like this?
You make an interesting point. If the US and the rest of the world don't take Assad's use of chemicals seriously, will Israel? I suspect they might for they have a lot at stake if Assad feels empowered to use WMD by the actions of the US people and Congress to prevent the anti-war President Obama from setting aside his principles and attempting to make Assad understand the use of chemical weapons are off the table.
Frankly one shouldn't even think about it. Just 2 bombs and Israel will cease to exist. Its such a small country. It's better Israel comes to an understanding with its Muslim neighbors. Frankly using poison gas and Nuclear bombs are 2 different things. Nuclear bombs have a half life period of some 60 years and life will be dead for that period. No, Assad will not use nuclear weapons though the USA might. After all they killed 300,000 in the atomic bombing of Japan.
I watched Obama's Prime Time talk tonight. He did the best he could given the fast changing situation and the histrionics from the Right and the Left. For example, the Progressives said of his speech:
"9:45 p.m. ET - The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a left-leaning advocacy group that has been opposed to military action in Syria, responded to the address saying "public pressure worked.""
- BULL PUCKY! Public pressure had nothing to do with it although it is clear Obama has been paying attention to what was being said as he addressed each of the rationale arguments.
Then the Right had this equally stupid thing to say:
9:43 p.m. ET - Republicans National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus responded to the president's address by saying, “The administration’s handling of the U.S. response to Syria has been so haphazard it’s disappointed even the president’s most ardent supporters."
“This rudderless diplomacy has embarrassed America on the world stage. For a president who campaigned on building American credibility abroad, the lack of leadership coming from the Oval Office is astounding," Priebus added.
BULL PUCKY! It doesn't deserve anymore comment.
Both the Progressive spokesman and Priebus must have gone to the same political unintelligence school. The only difference is when they got their Stupid Diploma and walked out the door, one turned Left and the other turned Right.
"They" say there's proof chemical weapons were used. Not sure if they also said the proof trail leads straight to Assad. (I don't have cable TV.) If so, then not only does Assad need to be stopped from doing it again but whoever supplied him with the weapons needs to go down too! I'm anti-war but pro-self-defense. The perpetrator and the accomplice(s) are both guilty of crimes against humanity! Aren't there international rules about this kind of stuff?
Yes, the latest Geneva Convention which 97% of the world has signed up to allows stockpiling but not use of chemical weapons. The intelligence the Congressman are being show is supposed to have classified film of Assad's forces using chemical weapons, which makes Assad responsible; it is his troops. The Russian's, who I doubt supply the chemicals, sarin gas can be made easily enough, probably help with the technology to use, store, and mix them safely. (Sarin gas itself degrades quickly, so, like epoxy glue, the components are kept separated until needed.)
You are probably lucky not to have cable.
The Syrian Govt did not use chemical weapons. This is a false flag operation (just like the non-existent WMDs in Iraq) to try to justify a war with Syria which has been planned for years.
See the evidence in this video from the mouths of General Wesley Clarke, Ron Paul and others . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … 8fiTc#t=13
There wasn't one iota of evidence in that video, just people's opinions who are opposed to intervening in Syria (accept for Clark, who was talking about Iraq, which I also opposed, not Syria).
The gov't, on the other hand does have hard video evidence which has convinced such anti-war Doves as Obama, Feinstein, Boxer, and Polosi that something must be done.
Nevertheless, you didn't answer the question I posed.
I did answer your question. The Syrian Govt did not use chemical weapons, and therefore the second part of your question is not relevant.
You want evidence? The evidence is that this is a false flag operation designed to provide an excuse to invade Syria, and that it was the rebel forces backed by the USA that used these weapons.
Russia even presented the UN with a 100 page scientific report to back this up.
By contrast the evidence of Kerry is flakey to say the least. Doesn't this smell like Iraq and the non-existent WMDs all over again, to you?
High-Level U.S. Intelligence Officers say that Syrian Government Did Not Launch Chemical Weapons
http://www.globalresearch.ca/high-level … ns/5348643
Obama & Kerry Caught Misleading the public on Syria & Weapons Inspectors
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … AUByw#t=81
Fake photos to justify war
http://chasvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09 … -from.html
UK-US Backed Terrorist Rebel Fighter is also FAKE Sarin Gas Attack Victim
http://nodisinfo.com/Home/takfiri-terro … eat-video/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-the-wh … ck/5347542
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/03 … us-record/
And regarding tactical nuclear weapons, do you mean like the ones used by the USA in Iraq? Have you seen the photos on the Internet of the terribly deformed childen now being born in Iraq because of this? And what about the white phospherous used against the Palestinians in Gaza?
Aren't you outraged? The USA decides to be the worlds policeman, but who is policing the USA?
OMG - do we now have a conspiracy theory that the US set off nuclear explosions in Iraq, explosions that were hidden from the rest of the world by their respective governments?
Absolutely unbelievable what lengths some people will go to in their hatred of their country.
To all of your offerings, except the second one, @Sanny, I give you this from the Foreign Policy Blog, http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 … s_truthers
For the second on, there is http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Timeli … ia-324303.
I respect your right to believe whatever you want to believe. I have read your links.
Your first link: There are many examples throughout history of governments (including the US) using false flag operations, involving killing their own people, in order to achieve what they would not have achieved otherwise. It is a practice which works because people just refuse to believe that THEIR president/ king / Prime minister would do such a thing. This is precisely the argument used in your link. As I say, you have the right to believe whatever you like - even a president who has broken almost every single promise he made to you before being elected. Its your choice.
Your second link: The head of the UN is appointed by the USA. Do you really expect him to oppose US policy? However, the vast majority of member states of the UN OPPOSE the US action in Syria, as do the majority of people in the USA, and its "war allies" UK and France.
"crossing the red-line" by accusing Assad of using chemical weapons is just the latest in a string of attempts to force a war with Syria. And I say again, if you choose to believe the constant propaganda put out by CNN, the BBC and other mainstream media that is your choice, but viewer numbers for CNN are plumetting as more and more people are questioning "the offical line" and seeking the other side of the argument, via alternative news channels and the Internet. The constant bombardment of info on TV about the guilty Syrian Govt is an attempt make the people believe what they want you to believe.
Who was it that said "Tell a lie often enough and eventually the people will believe it"
@sannyasinman - "force a war with Syria"? Just for clarification. Syria is already AT WAR with ... themselves? Is that a lie? Cause I really don't believe everything I hear on on TV.
If true, what's a reasonable viable alternative? Just wait until they kill each other, then move in and take over what's left?
I'm all for CORRECT INTELLIGENCE. How can anyone make good decisions without them? I mean if the information you get is BOGUS! How can you even discuss it let alone decide to GO TO WAR based on it?
@esoteric - I said I was done but then I checked my eMail and this was in it.
Isn't he/she going to look ridiculous when they decide on a non military solution, which they are heading towards.
Actually no, @Uninvited, he won't, instead, he will look brilliant because it is clear this would not have come about without his credible threat of military action in the first place.
If I decided (I'm a "she") ... If I decided on a non military solution and it worked! I wouldn't care if I looked like Bozo the Clown!!
Not you, I was referring to Sannyasinman
Oh! I'm laughing at myself now. Feeling very much like a clown.
Thanks! I needed a good laugh!
Especially after that serious interview - Charlie Rose and Assad.
This may sound very simplistic but George Washington remained neutral about the French Revolution and I really don't see why the USA can't or won't just let Syria fix their own problem.
@Sanny, saying things like "The head of the UN is appointed by the USA ..." and other clearly false statements puts your veracity in serious doubt and makes one wonder if you don't live in an alternate reality.
The head of the UN is chosen / appointed by the government of the USA (covertly, of course). Don't believe me, that's OK. You need to look outside of the mainstream media theater propaganda circus to have any idea how the world really works . . . and yes, I do live in a reality which is different to the dreamworld that you believe to be real.
Wrong. God does a little surgery on Satan, removing horns and tail, clothes him in a suit and installs him as the head of the UN. Don't believe me? That's OK - I live in a different reality than your dreamworld.
Useful comment, isn't it? I'm sure you found it so, just as everyone else finds your unsupported claim that the US secretly picks the head extremely valuable.
That's the stupidest theory I've ever read and it is not worthy of any answer. So far Israel attacked its neighborhood showing us its bellicose intentions, we never assess or theorize about its danger to the survival of the middle east, do we?
by Missing Link4 years ago
Are we (the USA) really going to launch an unprovoked attack upon Syria? Really?Obama said a long time ago if the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in Syria it would cross a line. The last thing...
by Susie Lehto13 months ago
More than 50 tomahawk missiles were launched from US Navy destroyers, targeting an airfield near Homs, the report said, citing a US official.More to follow..* http://www.itv.com/news/2017-04-07/repo …...
by Thomas Byers3 years ago
What Do You Think About Chemical Weapons Used In Syria?In the name of religion various factions of the Muslim faith are fighting one another and now they have used chemical weapons. Why do these people keep doing this...
by Deforest5 years ago
It just happened in Syria and guess who did it? The so-called Free Syria Army. Most of the victims were civilians! But what do we care? We are so far!Where do those chemical weapons come from if not from the West? Since...
by Deforest4 years ago
According to my source of information, those children were the ones who were kidnapped by djihadists. Experts are stating that they didn't die from sarin attacks since the symptoms don't correspond. In one word, we...
by Nicola Thompson4 years ago
Tell me about SyriaI missed a day or two of news and would love to hear what you folks have to say on the topic
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.