Chemical Weapons

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

We also shouldn't act as if experts are only Skeptical. For example, the former head of the NSA, CIA and Dep. DNI, and former four-star general of the USAF, Michael Hayden - as once 'the highest-ranking military intelligence officer in the armed forces', we can call him an expert - has a stronger opinion on attacks. I don't agree with Hayden on going in Unilaterally, but it shouldn't be painted that experts think one way and people who disagree are absurd.

 

 

However, he also backs up what Zinni said (and I said on here before them, despite not being a four star general, and only a lowly forum poster) about possible ramifications. He, like Zinni apparently (when he said 'we have to do something now or we'll open the door to Assad and others to have free reign including the use of chemical weapons') still thinks there attacks are the right way forward. I personally don't agree with unilateral action, certainly not at the moment.

 

[Red Phoenix]

I know Red Phoenix isn't totally daft, but the words in his last few posts drifted dangerously close.

 

 

You mean the few that you selected, while ignoring plenty of the others, as usual.

 

You're just going to have to face it that the Americans are corrupt as fuck with this whole Syria conflict, but I guess you can pretend otherwise until the actual truth arrives. Don't worry, there'll be plenty of evidence, there always is when the Americans destroy countries for their own selfish ends.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

You mean the few that you selected, while ignoring plenty of the others, as usual.

Me ignoring you until a certain point must mean all those links are just plain irrefutable and solid proof that the CIA - or whichever baseless bollocks you're coming out with now - supplied the rebels with chemicals, which they then used in the Ghouta area. Yeah? That's why I didn't reply to them, is it? Because they're all gold. Just like your Maloof link, which you said was hard to refute. Hmn, no. Strange you didn't reply to the points about him, though.

 

I was happy to waltz past, safe in the knowledge that the crackpot army was doing their thing. Now, if there's something specifically aimed at me, link me up and explain what it's evidence for and I'll reply to it. I wasn't aware that I had to reply to every piece of bollocks you posted without being charged with an inability to refute it. I saw you posting links to blogs and things, but I had no idea I had a duty to dissect each one and that they were aimed at me.

 

The only thing I'm guilty of not replying to that I should have was your Maloof reply, and it wasn't because I couldn't it was because it was even more daft than your video of the BM-14. Which wasn't one. I thought I'd save you a second spanking. Last time I bother.

[Red Phoenix]

Numero it seems like I've been going around in circles with you for pages, I think I'll give up at this point! You're still going on about me quoting blogs as if that's all I've linked in the thread, so it seems pointless. I could maybe go back through the entire thread and select a few of the best things I've quoted from established sites, but you'd probably just ignore the post anyway, so yeah, I'll pass.

 

I guess I can leave you with one more though :

 

 

History lesson: When the United States looked the other way on chemical weapons

...

 

But there is an even more striking instance of the United States ignoring use of the chemical weapons that killed tens of thousands of people — during the grinding Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. As documented in 2002 by Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs, the Reagan administration knew full well it was selling materials to Iraq that was being used for the manufacture of chemical weapons, and that Iraq was using such weapons, but U.S. officials were more concerned about whether Iran would win rather than how Iraq might eke out a victory. Dobbs noted that Iraq’s chemical weapons’ use was “hardly a secret, with the Iraqi military issuing this warning in February 1984:  ”The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide.”

 

As Dobbs wrote:

 

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the “human wave” attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/04/history-lesson-when-the-united-states-looked-the-other-way-on-chemical-weapons/

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Any chance you can tell me what that's evidence for? If it's a short summery of things the Americans did thirty years ago, fine, I've no problem with it. I don't need a history lesson on American foreign policy, but thanks for the link anyway. It's nothing new, but great. I just honestly don't see what it proves in relevance to what you and I have been talking about. What relevance does it have?

 

Why did you post it? To prove the Americans are both inconsistent in their foreign policy across administrations and that this Obama administration is hypocritical when judging them in a historical context? Well, frankly, there's much clearly more damning evidence than that, but fine. Good job. But what does any of this have to do with me or what we've been talking about? Are you under the impression I'm a supporter of weapons sales to Iraq or something?

[VladimirIlyich]

NV,please just let me ask you one simple question. Do you honestly believe the Americans want to get involved in Syria for non selfish reasons?

Secondly(I know,not just one simple question) do you believe the Yanks would be in and out within 90 days given recent history,Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

NV,please just let me ask you one simple question. Do you honestly believe the Americans want to get involved in Syria for non selfish reasons?

Secondly(I know,not just one simple question) do you believe the Yanks would be in and out within 90 days given recent history,Iraq and Afghanistan?

First things first, that's not a simple question. I've not really spoken about the Americans, so questions about them don't really have much to do with me or what I've said. I've said I support a limited, narrow intervention, assuming a lot of conditions are met. One of those conditions would be no-unilateral action, and I've said that since the very beginning of this thread. With that in mind, I'm hardly going to defend the actions or motives of the Americans.

 

However, I've already said there are many baseless assertions surrounding this issue, and if I were to chose one of those baseless assertions, I'd say there's no single, solitary reason. I'd guess there will be multiple objectives of any military action. Primary and secondary reasons. I'd suggest the primary reason is the chemical weapons issue. The President has spoken about a red line, they believe that line has been crossed and want to do something about it. Secondary objectives might be to impact the outcome of any regime change. They will not want al-Nusra getting much power. To be frank, I wouldn't want them getting power either. They're mental. So my answer to your first question is that I think there will be a variety of reasons.

 

Your second question, I just don't can't answer. Even with chosen baseless assertions. I certainly think they could do it. Whether it ends up like that, I've no idea. My guess would be any operation in Syria could we be over in a matter of weeks, not months. However, if Iran or forces under their control act, there could be serious blow-back. That could take time. It's a significant reason why unilateral action would be the wrong action to take, in my opinion. I hope that answers your question anyway.

 

Having given a decent shot to answering your questions, I've one for you. For your suggestions to be correct, even if the Syrian's give up their chemical arsenal, co-operate with the international community, and have them destroyed, the Americans will still have to attack, right? I mean, if they're going in for a proxy war for Israel, pipelines, or whatever else it was you were suggesting earlier in the thread, then Chemical weapons destruction doesn't really matter, does it? They'd go in anyway. Like I've always said, I'm totally open to the possibility that they're going in for their own selfish reasons, it's just that I've not seen anything to suggest they have any significant reason for doing it. It might turn out to be that the Americans are doing under-the-table oil deals worth $100b, and if that comes to light I'll be the first one on here calling them out about it. After all, I don't support imperialistic wars waged outside of international law.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Corrections: 'I just don't can't answer', and 'could well be over in a matter of weeks'.

[VladimirIlyich]

First things first, that's not a simple question. I've not really spoken about the Americans, so questions about them don't really have much to do with me or what I've said. I've said I support a limited, narrow intervention, assuming a lot of conditions are met. One of those conditions would be no-unilateral action, and I've said that since the very beginning of this thread. With that in mind, I'm hardly going to defend the actions or motives of the Americans.

 

However, I've already said there are many baseless assertions surrounding this issue, and if I were to chose one of those baseless assertions, I'd say there's no single, solitary reason. I'd guess there will be multiple objectives of any military action. Primary and secondary reasons. I'd suggest the primary reason is the chemical weapons issue. The President has spoken about a red line, they believe that line has been crossed and want to do something about it. Secondary objectives might be to impact the outcome of any regime change. They will not want al-Nusra getting much power. To be frank, I wouldn't want them getting power either. They're mental. So my answer to your first question is that I think there will be a variety of reasons.

 

Your second question, I just don't can't answer. Even with chosen baseless assertions. I certainly think they could do it. Whether it ends up like that, I've no idea. My guess would be any operation in Syria could we be over in a matter of weeks, not months. However, if Iran or forces under their control act, there could be serious blow-back. That could take time. It's a significant reason why unilateral action would be the wrong action to take, in my opinion. I hope that answers your question anyway.

 

Having given a decent shot to answering your questions, I've one for you. For your suggestions to be correct, even if the Syrian's give up their chemical arsenal, co-operate with the international community, and have them destroyed, the Americans will still have to attack, right? I mean, if they're going in for a proxy war for Israel, pipelines, or whatever else it was you were suggesting earlier in the thread, then Chemical weapons destruction doesn't really matter, does it? They'd go in anyway. Like I've always said, I'm totally open to the possibility that they're going in for their own selfish reasons, it's just that I've not seen anything to suggest they have any significant reason for doing it. It might turn out to be that the Americans are doing under-the-table oil deals worth $100b, and if that comes to light I'll be the first one on here calling them out about it. After all, I don't support imperialistic wars waged outside of international law.

Not sure why you keep mentioning Israel when I ask you a question as Ive never even mentioned them in this thread.

 

Anyway, thanks for avoiding answering my main question and making your reply about my crazy theories involving oil and self interest. A typical politicians reply.

 

If you think that there is any such thing as 'small scale' or 'limited' involving the Americans, I find it bizarre that I'm the crackpot here.

You think its about Chemical weapons, probably supplied by the US, UK or France and I think its about almost everything else so we are never going to agree.

I will leave it there and leave this to the intellectuals on the site while I scuttle off back to my non toxic crayons.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I directly answered both of your questions. You avoided answering mine, though. Thanks for that.

[dennis tooth]

What an arrogant pompous turd Numero is. Academical Ali.

 

He talks a lot of shit, anyone debating with him is wasting their time, I asked him to provide evidence he has claimed on the chemical attacks being conducted by the Assad government ages ago, he ignored me and he has provided none. His silence spoke volumes.

 

Secondly I asked him what launching missile strikes will achieve exactly and he has given no thought to this either becuase the man is an idiot, educated or not. Knowledge is on thing, application is another. Everything he has an opinion on he gets from the Guardian.

 

You can always tells hes talking bollocks when he starts with the longwinded shite that is pretty empty. He seems to think he is helping us by sharing his musings but anyone who reads his shit comes to a point where they want their wasted time back.

 

Its long been proven that the rebels have a shitload of Sarin and he ignores this totally, wilful and aloof he is a cheerleader of death with no ideas of his own but to perpetuate power chess intellectual culture for its own sake but is caught in language frames of which he is largely ignorant.

Worst of all he has read Chomsky and appears to have missed the whole point, which is another piece of evidence his idiocy.

Finally, most of all, once again his ignorant predictions have made him look foolish, as once again his knowledge application throws up an exception 0x8000ce and he has proven to be wrong and all the longwinded paragraphs of hand wringing will not avail him from this reality.

He's a textbook college boy who thinks he is able to apply his learned order to the chaos of actuality but it never works for him. Hes often best sticking to past events rather than commenting on current affairs or even predicting future ones. I would tell him but I enjoy watching him squirm each and every time he does it. 

He often claims he will debate academically with anyone but runs hides and ignores more than he takes on, especially the arkward questions

[dennis tooth]

Likes Obama.

 

Therefore tries to justify his actions.

 

Fit everything around it.

 

Flap when your wrong.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I didn't know whether to rep 'Academical Ali' or neg 'cheerleader of death'. I went for the rep, safe in the knowledge that I took your virginity.

[dennis tooth]

So you claim that there is no evidence it was the rebels but have no evidence it was Assad.

 

But you are sure it was Assad.

 

I could have saved you a lot of time in this thread with the above sentence.

 

Even the UN report which assigned no blame either way is held up by you as you scramble for something, you have also claimed that the fact that it assigned no blame either way is because it wasnt designed/meant to. Yet still this is claimed by you as pointing to Assad being the perpetrator. 

From these sorts of mongthink you have extrapolated all sorts of scenarios to cheerlead for actions that will lead to the deaths and disfigurements of a similar amount of people, consistently.

When confronted you resort to talk of negs and reps. I will check my rep off you later, perhaps I will find the evidence it was Assad there?

 

Let me know if you need any help in future.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

You know what would really, really make me look like a tragic idiot, Den? A real mother's sized cunt? If you used this sentence to hammer me: "It's long been proven that the rebels have a shitload of Sarin". If, instead of going for a character assassination about how stupid I am, in turn cementing your reputation as an unhinged lunatic, you could have presented that incontrovertible proof and hammered me with your own brilliance. Is there a reason you didn't do that?

[dennis tooth]

Well you disqualified me from being permitted to use links under any circumstances for one.

 

In addition, one of your favourite tactics on here is to claim things you dont provide evidence for, then when asked for evidence you start asking for your opponent's evidence.

Like now.

What you really need to do is go back a few hundred pages in this thread, answer my earlier questions, then come back with ones of your own. At that point I will deal with your queery.

 

You seem to be under the impression we are about to get into a debate, we are not, Im just openly mocking you.

 

I will continue to do so as I see fit until you do go back and answer my clearly ignored questions put directly to you or in the event you are proven right.

Given none of the intelligence agencies nor the UN have provided such evidence you claim to have knowledge of, given what I know (My sister has cabinet level security clearance) I am pretty sure my questions wont be tackled by you.

 

 

Character assasination? You never had character in the first place, seems you have just noticed this fact and pointed the finger at me, seems there is a theme here with you.

[dennis tooth]

As for claiming a 'high degree of certainty' earlier in the thread regards Intelligence assessments. You do understand the word 'certainty' dont you? 

[General Dryness]

My sister has cabinet level security clearance.

 

What, the fucking drinks cabinet? My dad is Superman, Dennis. What do you make of that?

 

This NV show was getting dull until "special" (in every sense of the word) guest Dennis turned up.

 

Just be careful Numero. Dennis is a bad slag what has done lots of people and is sure to do a 20 stretch in chokey. He'll be running the joint in no time of course. The Genial Dennis Tooth, they'll call him. He probably sold the sarin to Syria in the first place, just so he could set up this thread. Fucking criminal genius he is.

[dennis tooth]

No shes pretty much tee total.

 

Theres always one in the family. My little brother is gonna be at the next olympics where he will likely medal.

 

But Im the best of the lot.

[General Dryness]

No shes pretty much tee total.

 

Theres always one in the family. My little brother is gonna be at the next olympics where he will likely medal.

 

But Im the best of the lot.

 

Its spelt "meddle" Dennis. And I don't know if taking a shit in the long jump pit could strictly be described as meddling.

 

You are the best, Dennis. Full fucking stop.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

This NV show was getting dull

Woah, woah, woah. Are you suggesting my talk of Chinese-made Type 63 107mm isn't a blend of information and genuine entertainment? You're bang out of order, Dryness. Bang out.

[General Dryness]

Woah, woah, woah. Are you suggesting my talk of Chinese-made Type 63 107mm isn't a blend of information and genuine entertainment? You're bang out of order, Dryness. Bang out.

 

Heyyy, I'm just the comic relief around here, and until Dennis showed up I had precious little to work with. Just sayin' like. Also, if stereotypes are correct, 107mm is a bit long for anything supposedly made in China. Booya.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

That's girth. It's short, but it packs a punch.

[General Dryness]

That's girth. It's short, but it packs a punch.

 

Now you're cooking. King of Comedy.

[Stu Monty]

Still bemused that you think the primary objective is to do with weapons NV. Can't get my head around it. It's like you've had a blow to the head or something.
 

Your defence of your stance is fine, and well argued, but the idea that the US give two shits about some Syrians being gassed is just naïve tosh.

 

The same goes for the Russians. Both their primary objectives have nothing to do with what is best for Syria or Syrians and everything to do with long-game geopolitics.