Is America the only country in the world to not see chemical weapons use as a travesty? I hear echoes of Adolf Hitler laughing . The U.N.is completely useless--The "Useless Nations"......
It's a little bit more complex an issue than you seem to think it is.
Is America (and the people there) the only people to not see that interfering in the internal affairs of another nation is a travesty?
The "I know better than you how you should live your life" syndrome is alive and well.
The majority of Americans oppose intervention. So I guess most of them are on that same page.
A club for bureaucrats, infested with self interest, nepotism and cronyism.
For this reason it has become toothless in the face of dictators.
Sure it's a travesty - I don't see how this justifies, in and of itself, starting World War 3.
Over 400 children gassed to death ? !,500 total ,......?
I agree that chemical weapons are of a huge concern, let's hope that you bomb the correct culprit though. Perhaps napalm or even still an Atomic Bomb or Two might qualm things? No. I don't think any idiot would use them, Do You?
Like Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Everything is a pretext to attack the sovereignty of a smaller country. Why aren't we attacking Russia? It is our so-called enemy, after all?
If it is, it was a pretext set up in the 70s in plains sight.
Having seen video those children dying on the floor of sarin--it is a pretext that convinces the hell out of me.
Russia is not the enemy of the US it's just another competitor in the global arms market.
America is the one doing the gassing by helping the terrorists in Syria. Maybe you have been watching too much BBC brainwashing bullshit corporation
There is no doubt the world should be alarmed about what is happening. It should have been alarmed prior to the chemical weapons though. Our proposed attack seems to say that it's okay to kill thousands and thousands of people as long as you don't use chemical weapons. I'd have a lot more support for President Obama's proposed military action had it followed the initial conventional killings of his citizens and had it garnered more international support. To sit back and do virtually nothing while thousands of people are being killed and then say you've gone too far now that you've used chemical weapons, seems like the wrong message.
Your stated opinions all have merit. I am thinking along the same lines.
Can any one here explain to me why the mass killing of civilians using chemical agents is considered unacceptable by the world but the mass killing of civilians using explosive devices is okay? They all seem to me to be atrocities of the same magnitude. Ripping bodies to shreds using rockets, mortars, bombs, missiles, and artillery is more humane then gas?
Hello world, it is time for a reality check about carnage!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … F6P74_CmLY
i suspect many -- including myself -- remember the way our elected leaders at the highest levels misled us in their rush to war with Iraq. Can we really look back and say that we made the world a better place as a result. How many hundreds of thousands killed, injured or homeless?
I agree that action must be taken but we need to know without doubt who did what. Would it have been a stroke of brilliance for al-qaeda operatives to have been the ones behind thisn atrocity. To get the U.S. into another war that will only drag us down farther. I believe our President but there is no reason that all the classified information that backs up his conclusive proof should not be made public. At least we will then know why we are doing what we are doing.
Of course using chemical weapons on peaceful protesters is acceptable. Just ask U.S. law enforcement.
Are they only considered chemical weapons if it leads to fatalities?
Why Isn't Tear Gas Illegal?
Iranian security forces fired tear gas into crowds of anti-government protesters Thursday. Tear gas was also used in Sri Lanka this week and in Venezuela and Haiti last month. The State Department stockpiles it at embassies around the world. Aren't chemical weapons like tear gas illegal?
Yes, but only in war. The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention doesn't apply to domestic law enforcement. (The United States was a major proponent of the exemption, fearing that the convention might be interpreted to prohibit lethal injection.)
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ … legal.html
Evidence: Syria gas attack work of U.S. allies
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows- … Kc8aps2.99
On Aug. 23, LiveLeak.com hosted an audio recording of a phone call broadcast on Syrian TV between a terrorist affiliated with the rebel civilian militia “Shuhada al-Bayada Battalion” in Homs, Syria, and his Saudi Arabian boss, identified as “Abulbasit.” The phone call indicates rebel-affiliated terrorists in Syria, not the Assad government, launched the chemical weapons attack in Deir Ballba in the Homs, Syria, countryside.
The terrorist said his group, which comprises 200 terrorists escaped from al-Bayadah to al-Daar al-Kabera through a tunnel, needed to buy weapons to attack Homs.
The Saudi financier, who was in Cairo, asked the Syrian terrorists to give details about his group and how it will receive the money. The Saudi admitted his support to terrorists in Daraa and the Damascus countryside. The Syrian terrorist told him that one of the achievements of his “battalion” was the use of chemical weapons in Deir Ballba.
The recorded phone call disclosed the cooperation between two terrorist groups in Syria to bring two bottles of Sarin Gas from the Barzeh neighborhood in Damascus.
Russian media sources have consistently reported Syrian military have discovered rebel warehouses containing chemical weapons agents and have documented rebel chemical weapons attacks on the Syrian civilians the military.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows- … Kc8aps2.99
If it's a majority against intervention then , Okay , so now I'm thoroughly convinced that Americans in general and North Americans and Europeans in particular are cowards in responding to the use of Chem. weapons ! ................Hitler's cronies live ....and you know what . They live in your resistance to retaliation to the Syrian Gov. !
So we should show our distaste for killing civilians by going and killing more civilians!
What are you talking about? Cowards? They are waking up, They can see a bunch of little hitlers slowly emerging, America and Zionism.. They scream the words democracy, yet beneath closed doors scheme and plot to take over the world. They wage useless wars in the name of democracy, yet leave the countries with worse regimes. You can see the crazies they left Iraq to trying to inflict sharia law . They train terrorists, and the world know they are funding Al-qaida. I feel bad to say, but they should have killed those men at abu ghraib torture prison, as the humiliation and torture they faced is going to make the world a dangerous place to live in, in the future with mentally unstable, terrorist groups who slowly plotting their vendettas. and now these sick US politicians are working with terrorist to take down a secular country like syria who always had more freedom than most countries in the ME. Shame on all those people who are with America bombing as they are siding with the terrorists.
This is a question that was asked and the answer is from a American not myself.
The question was why did the USA not get involved in WW2 at the outbreak of this war?
At the outbreak of WW2 in 1939 - the vast majority of Americans wanted nothing what-so-ever to do with a war in Europe - Fortress America was the watch-word of the day and to Hell with anyone else.
Okay so far?
Then, Wham, in November 1941 - 'a day that will live in infamy' Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Imperial Japanese Navy.
Now, at this stage in proceedings, the Americans would quite easily have simply conducted their own private war with the Japanese.
However. On the day after the Japanese attack upon Pearl, Adolf Hitler, in a moment of utter insanity, declared war on the USA. Notwithstanding what Admiral Yamamoto had said, something about taking a sleeping tiger by the tail - no.
Thus, without provocation, the USA was forced into a war which it did not want.
I suggest you get your facts right about appeasement before you criticize others. What the USA did was called democracy, many people died for this right. I will refrain from even trying to get this thought into your mind as you are a total prat.
It's very easy to scream for intervention when you are safe in your home, a few thousand miles away from the Near East. In my opinion, this is one of those situations where there are no 'right' answers, and most courses of action are going to lead to unintended consequences. There are far too many geopolitical shenanigans going on in this part of the world as it is, and the situation is highly volatile (surprisingly enough, oil and gas play a major role in these political and economic games).
Painting a black and white picture that those who are wary of taking action are cowards is an extremely simplistic view - personally, I detest Assad, but I have genuine concerns about the rebels and feel that many of them are no better. For example, many religious minorities in Syria are supporting Assad - not because they like him, but because he at least offers them some protection from religious persecution. I would like to know more about the rebels before indirectly supporting military action, because we risk creating a far bigger monster.
It would be appreciated if you did not throw around the Hitler accusations or imply that anybody disagreeing with you is a coward. Greeks fought long and hard against the Nazis (some of the personal stories I heard from that time would break your heart), and your implications are extremely insulting to the memory of the men, women, and children who died and suffered during the Nazi occupation.
My Greek friends are devastated that Syrians are suffering in the same way, but don't trust the American government (with good reason), and they are also concerned that an influx of Syrian refugees will inflame an already delicate political situation caused by the rise of the vile, racist Golden Dawn party (they are the real Nazis, if throwing such terms at people makes you feel better).
Ultimately, if the US starts bombing the crap out of people and it all goes horribly wrong, the people in this region are the ones who will suffer the consequences while you sleep safely at night.
Your Liberal John Kerry even says " Okay so what do we do , turn our heads away and have a moment of silence "? That's such typical anti-war attitude , I believe it makes the case for a return of political assassinations. Assad admits his people did it !
Why don‘t you put money where your money is and join the army to begin with. Enough with your lies, Assad admits no such thing
Give me one piece of proof that Assad made any such positive statement.
This is much watch for everyone. A guy calls for Mcain to be arrested and tried for treason. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOapBU5e … ata_player
by Thomas Byers 4 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 to their own people. I think the world, not just the USA should step in and take...
by LAURENS WRIGHT 5 years ago
What are your views about Chemical Weapons In Syria ?Do you think that Syria is a threat to the US? Do you think that the US should declare war on Syria? Do you think that the US is trying to make a message? Do you believe that the US is leading the citizens for support of a...
by Missing Link 5 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 Asaad wanted was to have USA involvement. So, it makes no sense...
by dadibobs 11 days ago
If your country was invaded, would fighting to free your people from occupation make you a terrorist?, therefore being feared, hated and eventually punished, or would you become a public hero, reaping the benefits along the way?What are your thoughts?
by Susie Lehto 18 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 … near-homs/Tell me it isn't so.
by My Esoteric 5 years ago
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,...
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.
|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 advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|