Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

[KevinNYC]

Agent Orange is not banned under the chemical weapons treaty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemica...warfare_agents

There are other chemicals used militarily that are not scheduled by the Chemical Weapons Convention, and thus are not controlled under the CWC treaties. These include:

Defoliants that destroy vegetation, but are not immediately toxic to human beings. Some batches of Agent Orange, for instance, used by the United States in Vietnam, contained dioxins as manufacturing impurities. Dioxins, rather than Agent Orange itself, have long-term cancer effects and for causing genetic damage leading to serious birth deformities.

Dioxin is some nasty shit though, and almost wiped out the Bald Eagle.

[CeltsGarlic]

well the reason usa became so strong in first place, is because they didnt partisipated in wars when europe was fight after fight after fight. they usually just jump to finish the business, when all are weak. Thats a good strategy. Obviously they made some underestimations couple times too.

[knickballer]

Agent Orange is not banned under the chemical weapons treaty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemica...warfare_agents


Dioxin is some nasty shit though, and almost wiped out the Bald Eagle.

lol, it's not banned because the US was dropping them like flies in the past

[tomtucker]

well the reason usa became so strong in first place, is because they didnt partisipated in wars when europe was fight after fight after fight. they usually just jump to finish the business, when all are weak. Thats a good strategy. Obviously they made some underestimations couple times too.

not true, germany would have won ww2 had america not joined the fight......everyone in europe would be speaking german now......and america fought against japan too in ww2........no european army would ever have defeated japan........they were/are very tough, they have no fear, unlike the more "normal" german soldiers

[tomtucker]

the only "good" war america was in was ww2, where the US freed europe.....since then it went to shits......btw: it

[HarryCallahan]

not true, germany would have won ww2 had america not joined the fight......everyone in europe would be speaking german now......and america fought against japan too in ww2........no european army would ever have defeated japan........they were/are very tough, they have no fear, unlike the more "normal" german soldiers

That's not true. Germany would have lost regardless. They were dead in the water the second the invaded Russia.

Russia and England would both have defeated Japan had they needed to.

[travelingman]

[QUOTE=tomtucker]the only "good" war america was in was ww2, where the US freed europe.....since then it went to shits......btw: it

[MadeFromDust]

They attacked Lebanon because a terrorist muslim group (hezbollah) took two of their soldiers and to get them back they bombed 400 miles of roads, 73 bridges, Beirut's Rafic Hariri International Airport, ports, water and sewage treatment plants, electrical facilities, 25 fuel stations, 900 commercial structures, over 350 schools and two hospitals, and 15,000 homes.

The government of Lebanon condemned the kidnapping but Israel still killed innocent people and sent Lebanon infrastructure back a couple of decades.

That's how much the soldiers' lives meant to them and then some. Sounds fair just like in ancient days...harm 1 hair of one of God's annointed and 10,000 will pay the price.

[oh the horror]

If they do want to do this strike, isn't waiting and waiting a bad move?

[zoom17]

If they do want to do this strike, isn't waiting and waiting a bad move?

Obama doesn't know what he is doing this whole thing is a mess.

[KevinNYC]

If they do want to do this strike, isn't waiting and waiting a bad move?

Depends if you are asking from a military or a political point of view.

War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means.
Carl von Clausewitz

[oh the horror]

So in other words, politically it's a good move.


Military wise, no bueno.

[daily]

So in other words, politically it's a good move.


Military wise, no bueno.

It's not supposed to create a strategic advantage. It's a slap on the wrist so to speak.

[HarryCallahan]

It's not supposed to create a strategic advantage. It's a slap on the wrist so to speak.

Yeah, Obama has been calling for the removal of Assad for years already, has already been giving terrorists arms, draws a completely arbitrary "red-line", and tries to intervene before on the basis of that "red-line" having been crossed before any kind of investigation has been undertaken- but he doesn't want to create a strategic advantage?



Even IF there was sufficient moral atrocities committed, does anybody really think that the appropriate remedy is a bombing campaign that would surely make more victims than the sarin gas did?

[no pun intended]

Obama should have just kept his mouth shut and not proclaim the existence of any such "red-line" in the first place. But now that he has, Obama feels compelled to follow his already-made promise. The United States needs to quit thinking that they have something to prove.