09 Apr 18
Originally posted by @stevemccThe US has already reacted by condemning Assad and everybody who supports him.
Only if the US want to be taken seriously when they assert that chemical weapons are unacceptable. Therefore, I say yes
Do you mean war? With whom exactly?
I personally would prefer independent fact finding to determine if such an attack took place. It would seem a senseless thing for the Syrian government to do at this time, but I'm open to evidence.
09 Apr 18
Originally posted by @no1marauderI agree, last time there was no investigation and trump bombed anyway. Also, recently Trump said he would pull out of Syria and it would be other country's problem. Then Trump's lawyer gets raided and Trump wants to bomb Syria again. Doesn't that seem like more than just a coincidence?
The US has already reacted by condemning Assad and everybody who supports him.
Do you mean war? With whom exactly?
I personally would prefer independent fact finding to determine if such an attack took place. It would seem a senseless thing for the Syrian government to do at this time, but I'm open to evidence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-seizes-records-related-to-stormy-daniels-in-raid-of-trump-attorney-michael-cohens-office/2018/04/09/e3e43cf4-3c30-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.804928d9d333
09 Apr 18
The post that was quoted here has been removedI agree. The USA still has chemical weapons as well. Even more hypocritical, the USA used napalm on North Korea during the Korean war. To that hypocrite Niki Haley I ask "who would use napalm? What kind of monster would kill people by burning them to death with napalm?"
It would be hard to argue that napalm is more humane than Chlorine gas. The corporate news media will undoubtedly omit any discussion of that though. Effective propaganda. The creator of this thread bought right into it.
09 Apr 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainThe difference is that chlorine gas persists for a long time and can be blown around via the wind. It can also penetrate areas where napalm would not. Napalm can have an indirect effect of using up all the oxygen in bunkers and people suffocating from that.
I agree. The USA still has chemical weapons as well. Even more hypocritical, the USA used napalm on North Korea during the Korean war. To that hypocrite Niki Haley I ask "who would use napalm? What kind of monster would kill people by burning them to death with napalm?"
It would be hard to argue that napalm is more humane than Chlorine gas. The corpora ...[text shortened]... iscussion of that though. Effective propaganda. The creator of this thread bought right into it.
Originally posted by @athousandyoungThere is no evidence Syria used chlorine gas at all. I saw the videos on the news, just a bunch of people watering each other off with a hose. There was no investigation last time either.
The difference is that chlorine gas persists for a long time and can be blown around via the wind. It can also penetrate areas where napalm would not. Napalm can have an indirect effect of using up all the oxygen in bunkers and people suffocating from that.
Besides, the USA still has chemical weapons after a lot of time to get rid of them. If my government was serious about chemical weapons it would have gotten rid of their own by now.
BTW, you don't think napalm falls on houses and burns children alive?
09 Apr 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainYou mentioned chlorine gas not me. I agree that burning people alive is incredibly horrific. One of the worst ways to die. Chemical weapons are no more horrible than fire weapons in terms of the damage done to the victims.
There is no evidence Syria used chlorine gas at all. I saw the videos on the news, just a bunch of people watering each other off with a hose. There was no investigation last time either.
Besides, the USA still has chemical weapons after a lot of time to get rid of them. If my government was serious about chemical weapons it would have gotten rid of their own by now.
BTW, you don't think napalm falls on houses and burns children alive?
10 Apr 18
Originally posted by @athousandyoungThank you. People need to understand why North Koreans distrust the USA so much. Everything is a double standard with the USA.
You mentioned chlorine gas not me. I agree that burning people alive is incredibly horrific. One of the worst ways to die. Chemical weapons are no more horrible than fire weapons in terms of the damage done to the victims.
Like Duchess rightly pointed out, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and did nothing, just let it happen without complaint. That is why the Iranians distrust the USA so much. That and Operation Ajax.
10 Apr 18
Originally posted by @stevemccGoing through with war just to save face is monumentally stupid. True, such a threat shouldn't be made in the first place. But going to war over ego is always the wrong path.
Only if the US want to be taken seriously when they assert that chemical weapons are unacceptable. Therefore, I say yes