Posted:
#76
this act has been proven to be totally symbolic
0
Targeted, Precision Drone Strikes & The Responsibility to Protect Act.
Posted:
#77
Quote Originally Posted by lordspoint:
If its truly about credibility we should be dropping bombs in alot more countries than Syria. 
And we wont be bombing any chemical sites to incinerate said chemicals. The risk of expelled posions is quite large and many of the exposed sites are near large civilian populations. I can guarantee you that we will not be hitting any of the chemical depots.
Don't make assertions about stuff you have absolutely 0 knowledge of please..
You have a security level clearance that allows you to access this forum from the internet and that is about it
0
Posted:
#78
Quote Originally Posted by lordspoint:
If its truly about credibility we should be dropping bombs in alot more countries than Syria.
And we wont be bombing any chemical sites to incinerate said chemicals. The risk of expelled posions is quite large and many of the exposed sites are near large civilian populations. I can guarantee you that we will not be hitting any of the chemical depots.
Technically not true.
Most chemical weapons require some form of additive so to speak that allow the chemical component to manifest itself. The reasoning is simple...absent that, they would be of equal danger to the handlers.
Chemical weapons can often be neutralized by explosives.
0
Posted:
#79
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Technically not true.
Most chemical weapons require some form of additive so to speak that allow the chemical component to manifest itself. The reasoning is simple...absent that, they would be of equal danger to the handlers.
Chemical weapons can often be neutralized by explosives.
There is one precedent for the bombing of a chemical weapons stock pile.
We bombed a Iraqi bunker during the 1st Persian Gulf War. It contained thousands of artillery rockets filled with sarin gas, the same nerve gas suspected in Syria.
More than twenty years later the site is so contaminated no one goes near it.
You cannot safely bomb a chemical weapons storage area into oblivion.
0
Posted:
#80
Dj,
Bombs will not do that. You can neutralize chemical weapons if they are primed with explosives individually, but bombing them and praying that all of the weapons are neutralized is lunacy.
Also it is true that certain chemical weapons have to be primed themselves with a catalyst, but there is no intelligence that these chemical stores have not been mobilized for use.
If you are in the camp that believes that Assad is behind the chemical attacks, then it stands to reason that his chemical arsenal has been primed for use.
Google Bunker 13 or "chemical Weapons Al-Muthanna Iraq"
0
Posted:
#81
Stiln
Instead of attacking me try proving what I said is wrong.
If you want I can post you a bunch of links from chemical experts on the subject. I can also post intelligence that we have on where the sites were or where we think they have been moved to.
You can't prove anything I said as being wrong so save your BS.
Instead of attacking me try proving what I said is wrong.
If you want I can post you a bunch of links from chemical experts on the subject. I can also post intelligence that we have on where the sites were or where we think they have been moved to.
You can't prove anything I said as being wrong so save your BS.
0
Posted:
#84
Quote Originally Posted by lordspoint:
Yes dj, under ideal conditions chemical weapons can be incinerated by our crash pad or PAW bombs.
War is not a laboratory..... read up on it some more and you will see what I say is technically 100% correct in real world conditions.
Yes dj, under ideal conditions chemical weapons can be incinerated by our crash pad or PAW bombs.
War is not a laboratory..... read up on it some more and you will see what I say is technically 100% correct in real world conditions.
No, you gave the typical right wing all or nothing response.
We would not bomb the chemical labs unless we knew that it was not primed for use.
Iraq was intentional. Syria would not be.
0
Posted:
#85
Nothing I had to say was right or left wing. Where did that comment come from?
all the experts on both sides say bombing chemical sites is not worth the risk. It has nothing to do with the left or the right.
I have noticed most of your replies in various threads have been very partisan in nature whether denouncing someone's view as being right or expounding on someone's left view you agree with.
You are very partisan lately...much more than in days past
all the experts on both sides say bombing chemical sites is not worth the risk. It has nothing to do with the left or the right.
I have noticed most of your replies in various threads have been very partisan in nature whether denouncing someone's view as being right or expounding on someone's left view you agree with.
You are very partisan lately...much more than in days past
0
Posted:
#86
Quote Originally Posted by lordspoint:
Nothing I had to say was right or left wing. Where did that comment come from?
all the experts on both sides say bombing chemical sites is not worth the risk. It has nothing to do with the left or the right.
I have noticed most of your replies in various threads have been very partisan in nature whether denouncing someone's view as being right or expounding on someone's left view you agree with.
You are very partisan lately...much more than in days past
Nothing I had to say was right or left wing. Where did that comment come from?
all the experts on both sides say bombing chemical sites is not worth the risk. It has nothing to do with the left or the right.
I have noticed most of your replies in various threads have been very partisan in nature whether denouncing someone's view as being right or expounding on someone's left view you agree with.
You are very partisan lately...much more than in days past
That's because as a right wing sheep, you view anything else as partisan. Make sure you run your response by 14Daroad or Slim for their approval. No doubt they directed you to use your current avator.
To respond to your post, I have said a zillion times that Bush was right in Iraq, with the exception of the post-war plans and that is exactly Obama's problem in Egypt and Syria with regime removal.
I have called Kerry inept, I have instead credited low level diplomats for any possible success in the current proposal.
I laugh at you right wingers who have suddenly turned dovish as opposed to hawkish because a dem is in charge in the same way I laugh at dems who have become hawkish and crucified Bush.
And I agreed with Club that on 9/11, you righties would have attacked anyone who used the day to discuss how Bush was at fault, instead of remembrance, yet Faux news and every rightie on this board was screaming Benghazi yesterday.
There is nothing partisan about my posts. You are just too far right to see that. 
0
Posted:
#88
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
I think you are pretty moderate DJ,
But you never call the lefties out on their $hit so it makes you look like a liberal.
You say you do, but if you do, it is in threads I don't see, and it is probably done politely without the venom you save for the "Right wingers".
That's because you pay far more attention to the threads critical of Obama, mostly because you are an active participant.
Ask Stilln about his Israeli threads. Ask Kaplan about his anti-Bush war criminal threads. The difference is that Obama is currently in charge so the anti-threads in a board that is far more right wing than left wing are more voluminous.
I abhor extremism and right now, it is far more 'right' than left. In the Bush years, it was the opposite.
0
Posted:
#89
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
That's because as a right wing sheep, you view anything else as partisan. Make sure you run your response by 14Daroad or Slim for their approval. No doubt they directed you to use your current avator.
To respond to your post, I have said a zillion times that Bush was right in Iraq, with the exception of the post-war plans and that is exactly Obama's problem in Egypt and Syria with regime removal.
I have called Kerry inept, I have instead credited low level diplomats for any possible success in the current proposal.
I laugh at you right wingers who have suddenly turned dovish as opposed to hawkish because a dem is in charge in the same way I laugh at dems who have become hawkish and crucified Bush.
And I agreed with Club that on 9/11, you righties would have attacked anyone who used the day to discuss how Bush was at fault, instead of remembrance, yet Faux news and every rightie on this board was screaming Benghazi yesterday.
There is nothing partisan about my posts. You are just too far right to see that.
The hypocrisy turns my stomach, and we are all guilty of it at one time or another. But that is the world of politics, always has been and always will be.
Back in the spring of 03' I was all about supporting Bush and his war plans in Iraq. No question there. But I also was a naive, partisan, and relatively uninformed 23 yr old kid. To make this a very short story, I was wrong.
Th best way to garner true wisdom is when a man realizes and admits he was wrong about something, and then learns from it.
The world is an awful place full of injustice and tragedy. We cannot as a nation start picking and choosing our spots where to intervene. Its not realistic and will only lead to bigger problems down the line. Not to mention the people who will have to carry out these missions didn't sign up to play world cop.
0
Posted:
#90
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
That's because as a right wing sheep, you view anything else as partisan. Make sure you run your response by 14Daroad or Slim for their approval. No doubt they directed you to use your current avator.
To respond to your post, I have said a zillion times that Bush was right in Iraq, with the exception of the post-war plans and that is exactly Obama's problem in Egypt and Syria with regime removal.
I have called Kerry inept, I have instead credited low level diplomats for any possible success in the current proposal.
I laugh at you right wingers who have suddenly turned dovish as opposed to hawkish because a dem is in charge in the same way I laugh at dems who have become hawkish and crucified Bush.
And I agreed with Club that on 9/11, you righties would have attacked anyone who used the day to discuss how Bush was at fault, instead of remembrance, yet Faux news and every rightie on this board was screaming Benghazi yesterday.
There is nothing partisan about my posts. You are just too far right to see that.
My comments were about my opinion that we wouldnt bomb any chemical sites. I didnt say we wouldnt do it bc Obama is a democrat.
If you think I am a "righty" you go right ahead and believe that.
Have a great day
0
Posted:
#91
Quote Originally Posted by TILTOLOGIC:
The hypocrisy turns my stomach, and we are all guilty of it at one time or another. But that is the world of politics, always has been and always will be.
Back in the spring of 03' I was all about supporting Bush and his war plans in Iraq. No question there. But I also was a naive, partisan, and relatively uninformed 23 yr old kid. To make this a very short story, I was wrong.
Th best way to garner true wisdom is when a man realizes and admits he was wrong about something, and then learns from it.
The world is an awful place full of injustice and tragedy. We cannot as a nation start picking and choosing our spots where to intervene. Its not realistic and will only lead to bigger problems down the line. Not to mention the people who will have to carry out these missions didn't sign up to play world cop.
There is no black/white answer to US intervention. It is always case by case. The key is what is to be achieved. Reagan/Haig became the first President to believe that all policy should be based on US interests and that a leader should be made to feel fear and marginalized rather than removed.
I cannot say that would have worked with SH at the time. Thus, I still believe US action was necessary and justified. The problem, as in Syria and Egypt is what happens after. As Powell said, you break it, you own it.
0
Hot Forum Topics
