Syria says it has weapons of mass destruction in case of foreign attack - CNN.com gogogoogogo usa stop evil islam from destroying the world!
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9GAqVT_C_U[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy6UI-EfsB4]Iraq War Propaganda One Man Tried to Warn Us - YouTube[/ame] FUCKING NEOCONSERVATIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuefjIYKkjE[/ame]
Who cares? There are about 20-30 countries in the world that have creates nuclear weapons. Even Japan has some. If you still think we invaded Tue middle east over wmd you need to wake.up and smell the money
[quote name='"yurigadaisukida"']Who cares? There are about 20-30 countries in the world that have creates nuclear weapons. Even Japan has some. If you still think we invaded Tue middle east over wmd you need to wake.up and smell the money[/quote] Were not gonna invade Syria, Israel is gonna do it for us. Turkey would probably go too since they fucking hate Syria.
IF you aren't American, what sort of right to life do you have? Can't answer the question? Let's kill em all!
[quote name='"ProvidencePlant"'] Nah, it'll end up being a NATO humanitarian mission and we'll be involved somehow. Just wait...[/quote] And the US would be the back bone. Yay!! Another way for my beloved country to spend money we don't have!
The U.S. is going to be driven by ideology on this - to support the Arab Spring and freedom and democracy. That means placing sanctions, withdrawing embassy staff and trying to isolate Syria and undermine the regime diplomatically. But this doesn’t mean democracy in Syria. It means a collapse of the state and probably a civil war. America is not going to be willing to send in any military. So this puts America in a rather bad position of kicking out the supports of the present state without being willing to build up any alternative. Syria is the cockpit of the Middle East. It has borders with most of America’s major allies in the region: Israel, Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, and it might as well have one with Saudi Arabia because the Jordanian border is small in between those two. And it will be Saudis that undoubtedly fund much of the opposition as they did in Iraq. Saudi Arabia will be sucked into this and it’ll be very torn because the monarchy does not want revolution in Syria by any means. It wants stability. But there will be many Saudis who see this as an opportunity to get rid of the Shiite regime that’s pro-Iranian and anti-Sunni. They see the current regime as deeply heterodox and non-Muslim. So all the Wahabi instincts will be to bring down this regime. The monarchical instincts will be to support it. There aren't good outcomes for Assad because even if Assad manages to terrify the opposition to stop in the short-term, over the long-term it’s going to kill the economy, which was key to Assad’s plans because his mantra was that he was going to be like China and follow China’s model. He was going to keep one-party rule and he was going to liberalize the economy. But he was too little, too late. He didn't create jobs. He didn't get growth up beyond five-percent. That’s what he needed to do.
Having them for defensive reasons is a lot more rational than having them for offensive reasons like Washington does.
[quote name='"Fizzly"'] Having them for defensive reasons is a lot more rational than having them for offensive reasons like Washington does.[/quote] When have we used a chemical/biological weapon offensively since WW1 besides Agent Orange?
"We"?? Maybe YOU'VE used WMDs before, but not me. Nukes (also defined as "WMDs") -- Washington used them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1945. And Washington has no problem using them again if necessary to subdue a nation that doesn't bow to its dictates (that would be an "offensive" use). If I recall correctly, the subject has come up regarding Iran. (ok, go ahead and start rationalizing the offensive use of nukes against Iran.)
[quote name='"Jamaican Hotbox"'] Were not gonna invade Syria, Israel is gonna do it for us. Turkey would probably go too since they fucking hate Syria.[/quote] My point was that if the us is going to use the wmd argument.to invade a country we need to invade every country that has wmds including China. Right now we used wmd. As an exscuse to secure foreign oil from a weaker nation
we also have WMDs who is to say that they aren't allowed t have any while we are? since when did we become the world police? team America is just a joke but it's how we at
[quote name='"HighMtnSkier"']^ Serious? Haven't we killed enough people already?[/quote] finally someone who isnt ignorant and blind about our wrong doings
Exactly. I was saying this to all the flag-wavers back in '02 when Washington was screaming about Saddam having WMDs. It's pretty obvious to anyone by now: Like all bullies, Washington is chicken-shit to mess with anybody who might be able to fight back. So they only invade small, weak nations with little or no means of defense other than peasants with rifles against the most powerful military ever assembled. Anyone with nukes? They are safe, and that is why more nations want nukes -- they can see what's going on.
[quote name='"Fizzly"'] "We"?? Maybe YOU'VE used WMDs before, but not me. Nukes (also defined as "WMDs") -- Washington used them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1945. And Washington has no problem using them again if necessary to subdue a nation that doesn't bow to its dictates (that would be an "offensive" use). If I recall correctly, the subject has come up regarding Iran. (ok, go ahead and start rationalizing the offensive use of nukes against Iran.)[/quote] Hahahah see your assuming I support a war against Iran. Negative. I don't. My country is broke. Unless we are directly attacked by Iran's military I DO NOT support a war with Iran. Why spend money that we don't fucking have?? And the US would never even need to use nukes against Iran. Just get NATO and Israel to go in overwhelming force like the world did in Desert Shield/Desert Storm.