What's Worse? Chemical Weapons or Al-Qaeda?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Taft2016

Taft2016

Verified User
Isn't that the real choice we're being given here? To pick between the two?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/357858/drawing-al-qaeda-red-line-andrew-c-mccarthy

In one corner, we have Bashar Assad. Unlike President Obama and his minions, who spent their first couple of years empowering Assad — Obama reopening diplomatic ties, Hillary pronouncing him a valiant “reformer,” Pelosi huddling with him, Kerry wining and dining him — many of us alleged “isolationists” on the right were never under any illusions about him.
Click to expand...

By all means, let’s assume Assad has used chemical weapons on a small scale against other Syrians during a bloody civil war that, though undeniably awful, poses no threat to American national security.

By contrast, Assad’s “rebel” opposition, spearheaded by the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood, systematically uses al-Qaeda in its military operations — not one or two times, but every single day, and in virtually every attack that causes real damage to the regime.

Why is Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons worse than the rebels’ use of al-Qaeda?
Click to expand...
 
I found his comparisons on faux outrage over chemical weapons to gun control 'emergencies' convincing.
 
At congressional hearings this week, while making the case for President Barack Obama's plan for military action in Syria, Kerry asserted that the armed opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "has increasingly become more defined by its moderation, more defined by the breadth of its membership, and more defined by its adherence to some, you know, democratic process and to an all-inclusive, minority-protecting constitution."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/05/us-syria-crisis-usa-rebels-idUSBRE98405L20130905
 
Yeah, that all-inclusive minority protection stuff.... that's exactly what we're seeing in Egypt, Libya, and Algeria. :rolleyes:
 
"Al Qaeda" is one piece of the syrian opposition puzzle. The term itself has, in the eyes of Americans, become synonymous with OBL and 9/11. The words Al Qaeda themselves have no special religious or radical islamic significance. They only mean "the register". It started out as a list of former Afghan fighters and it has now become sort of a "franchise name" and to suggest that there is unanimity of purpose between all groups who call themselves "Al Qaeda in Iraq" or "Al Qaeda in Syria" or "Al Qaeda in Brooklyn" for that matter is incorrect.
 
As a candidate in 2008, Obama's foreign policy was like a 7th grader's essay; "We just have to sit down with them and talk." He was going to meet with Iran and North Korea, sit down with them, talk it all out. Beyond this 7th grade strategy, he had nothing. A month ago he got into a snit and refused to even sit down with Putin, the same Putin who warned us about the Boston Marathon bombers. Now Putin was supposed to be some kind of anti-American pariah.

The problem is, Obama has no foreign policy skills to fill the gap between a 12 year-old's naivete and dropping bombs. There's a lot of ground in between the two, but he is completely ignorant of any of it. These are not skills developed by community organizers.

When he fails, and he does miserably, he has a tantrum. When the force of his words and his personality fail, he has no other arrows in his quiver other than military bombers.

It was obvious to anyone with an ounce of perception in 2008. Alas, we were outweighed by the promises of government freebies and socialist utopias.
 
a small franchise operation of a loosely affiliated islamic terror organization versus the use of internationally banned heinous chemical weapons against unarmed civilians? I would vote for the latter.
 
maineman said:
a small franchise operation of a loosely affiliated islamic terror organization versus the use of internationally banned heinous chemical weapons against unarmed civilians? I would vote for the latter.
Click to expand...

Do you think we should bomb syria maineman? Really?
 
maineman said:
a small franchise operation of a loosely affiliated islamic terror organization versus the use of internationally banned heinous chemical weapons against unarmed civilians? I would vote for the latter.
Click to expand...

Then put on your little blue helmet and join the French.

Most Americans want no part of this.
 
Big money said:
So you keep saying.

A majority of Americans don't want to serve theirs attacking a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked us.

Where does that leave you?
Click to expand...

it leaves me as an American citizen and veteran with an opinion. I have never expected that my opinions would be shared by a majority of others.
 
maineman said:
I think we should take steps to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians with chemical weapons.
Click to expand...

Why? Why is it our problem? Yes, its tragic whats going on over there. Horrible. But when will it stop? You think bombing them, or whatever steps we take will change anything? When is the last time that's worked? Its going to fuel the fire pal, its going to pit us further into perceived global war, listen to yourself man! Jesus, really? Now the liberals want war? +WTF is going on?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top