Prove the US is lying about who used the chemical weapons on whom

evince said:
There were no WMDs like claimed by Bush's lies.

then you fucks started saying he shipped them to Syria.


then you wanted to go get him
Click to expand...

And if we had, we wouldn't be discussing the gassing of the Syrian population; because we would have found the WMD that Saddam smuggled out of his country.
 
blackascoal said:
There is only ONE nation on earth who has ever used nuclear weapons .. and it did so twice.

Is there ANY doubt that if that nation chose to use nukes again that it would do so without regard for international law?
Click to expand...

Of course we would if we felt our interests were threatened and that was the only way to respond.

but also of course we would deserve any retaliation other nations decided to use against us because of that criminal act.

But also of course we still have the most nukes, so they will be careful how they respond.

Don't think Assad has nukes, and don't think his chemical weapons can reach us.

Now if your point is a nation can use whatever weapons it wants regardless of international laws - again, they can; but there can also be retaliation against them for doing so.
 
I will suggest it again.....we could avoid all this if Russia took possession of all Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons....then we would know 1) it would not be used against Syrians......and 2) if Syria falls, it will not be used against non-Syrians either.......

there would be no reason for Russia to refuse.....the alternative for Assad is being bombed and certainly he isn't stupid enough to refuse on the basis of saying he needs to use it against Syrians.....
 
tekkychick said:
Of course we would if we felt our interests were threatened and that was the only way to respond.

but also of course we would deserve any retaliation other nations decided to use against us because of that criminal act.

But also of course we still have the most nukes, so they will be careful how they respond.

Don't think Assad has nukes, and don't think his chemical weapons can reach us.

Now if your point is a nation can use whatever weapons it wants regardless of international laws - again, they can; but there can also be retaliation against them for doing so.
Click to expand...

My point is that international law is a by-choice option. We don't really give a damn about it .. we just use it to attack nations and people we don't like.
 
blackascoal said:
:0) You are truly a really dumb person.

Here's your poll .. you really dumb person .. :0)

Click to expand...

Not the famous video again, you are truly an innocent who accepts propaganda without any attempt to disseminate fact from fiction. Of course they turned out because they had been told that the rebels would kill them all. How many of those people had been coerced to be there?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Not the famous video again, you are truly an innocent who accepts propaganda without any attempt to disseminate fact from fiction. Of course they turned out because they had been told that the rebels would kill them all. How many of those people had been coerced to be there?
Click to expand...

Oh, so now you know what coercion is!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
dude....what does that have to do with whether he had support in Libya?.......
Click to expand...

It has to do with BAC choosing to totally ignore the evil that Ghaddafi perpetrated in Africa. As for his support within Libya, I am sure that Nicolae Ceaușescu had equally "massive support" right up to when he had to run for his life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top