If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   US prepares to add the most important northern Syrian rebel group to its list of banned terrorist organizations. But it will have to fight alongside them if Assad uses chemical weapons. Why do we play World Police again?   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 56
    More: Stupid, United States, Syrians, Islamists, guerrilla war, National Coalition Party, chemical weapons, jihadists, sectarian violence  
•       •       •

411 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Dec 2012 at 10:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-06 01:19:19 PM  

I_C_Weener: imontheinternet: divgradcurl: imontheinternet:

Iraq never used chemical weapons.

i think the kurds may disagree with your thoughts on this: Halabja

Iraq didn't have them or use them in the early 00s, when the invasion happened. Syria has a known stockpile.


Maybe, just maybe the reason we are so eager to stop them from using them is because these are the chemical weapons that Iraq had that crossed the Syrian border when we invaded and it woudl be embarassing if they really did exists?
 
It'd make a good screen play.


republican fan fiction
 
2012-12-06 01:46:42 PM  
Because the UN. And allies.

/"I guess irony can be pretty ironic sometimes."
 
2012-12-06 03:44:03 PM  
Its going to be a giant clusterfark no matter what we do. I suppose you could pick from several options each worse than the next
 
2012-12-06 04:58:08 PM  

imontheinternet: Jim_Callahan: imontheinternet: Iraq never used chemical weapons. They didn't even have any.

Um... the Kurds have sent me a psychic message asking me to inquire what alternate universe you're from, exactly.

Iraq didn't have them or use them in the 00s before the war. The ones they had used against the Kurds had a shelf life and had expired well before '03. If they're used in Syria tomorrow, I won't advocate an invasion in 2040 because of it.


So if a war crime happened before 2000, it is okay to say it never happened?
 
2012-12-06 07:23:42 PM  
In this instance, we just back up one of the U.N.'s strongly worded letters with one of our own.
 
Esn
2012-12-07 02:54:35 AM  

Magorn: It's not that hard subby, the bUlk of the Syrian rebel forces ARE actual terrorists, specifically the group that used to call itself Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Back when the Iraq invasion still looked like it was going to be a cakewalk, the architects of the invasion started strongly hinting that Syria had "next". In response, Assad's Daddy emptied his prisons of the militant Salafists (hardline Sunnis) he'd locked up for trying to overthrow HIS regieme. He basically freed them on the condition that the go south and fight the American infidels in Iraq and get the hell out of his country. Thus the Syrain salafist militant groups provided the manpower and the Saudi Wahabbists (even MORE hardline Sunnis) provided the funding for what would become "Al-qaeda in Iraq" who fought US troops and the Iraqi Shi'ites with equal fervor.

When even the Iraqi Sunnis finally turned on them (remember the "Anbar awakening")you had a group of heavily armed, combat-hardened militants that were suddenly persona non grata in iraq and not at all welcomed by the current regieme in their home country. That's more or less hen the Syrain civil war started.

so Yeah, these guys ARE terrorists and ones engaged in active combat with US forces less than 3 years ago; however they MIGHT be slightly better people than the folks currently holding the reins in Dmascus


Huh, interesting. Did not know that.

I still think it's kind of sad that the US keeps promoting Saudi Arabia's fundamentalist Wahabbist brand of Islam. I know it's probably not intentional, but somehow US policies always seem to end up improving the hand of the religious hardliners. Not just Afghanistan. A recent example is how Gaddafi's overthrow directly led to Wahabbists taking over northern Mali, and it seems likely to happen with Syria as well (both initiatives supported by Saudi Arabia).
 
Displayed 6 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report