Just Breaking on CNN, Strike on Syria Within Hours Without Congressional Approval

Here's an interesting article.

The truth about Syria is being revealed by activist and blogger ‘Syrian Girl’ (Mimi Al-Laham) who spells out what others fear to think, let alone say. For example, everybody realizes that the Americans are arming al-Qaeda but few know that the Rothschild national banks are behind the attacks on Libya and Syria.

As soon as the Gaddafi government had been defeated the globalists put the Libyan national bank back under Rothschild control. It’s also what they are doing to Egypt which has been trapped into accepting USD 4.8 billion, at interest, from the International Monetary Fund. What a mistake by President Morsi! And since when have true Muslims agreed to pay riba? In either case, Libya or Egypt, the New World Order has no intention of allowing an Islamic national bank which would issue its own money at no interest.

Source

But we also have one other player to consider...
MONSANTO

When Iraq was invaded in 2003 one of the first things the Americans did was to issue the notorious Bremer Orders. Order 81 insisted that Iraqi farmers could not store their own seeds, developed over hundreds of years. Instead, they must buy Frankenstein seeds which have to be bought annually from Frankenstein corporations like Monsanto. These seeds have terminator genes which ensure that the seeds can only be used for one season.

Guess who doesn't allow GMO?

President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, where more than 33,000 people have been killed in 19 months of conflict, issued a law on GM food Thursday to preserve human life, state-run SANA news agency reported.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


So lets say, they do find it being REBELS who is responsible for these gas attacks - will they fight THEM too?

What I am aiming at, we already have indications of rebels having used sarin (the chemical used in the recent attack), but still the West seems to be aligned in supporting them. We already know, the rebels are a real bunch of factions of seriously bad guys, al-Qaeda and sorts, true terrorists - and I supposed we were on War on Terror.

As one Senator said, are chemical attacks over there a threat to American security? We should let the UN handle it all and stay out of it.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Except how is the UN going to handle it? They have no military forces except those of the member states, and any action can and probably will be vetoed by Russia. The UN can't handle finding their way out of a paper bag and needs to just go away already.

reply to post by Xtrozero


The use of chemical weapons is a threat to the world if the world turns a blind eye to it, no matter who is using them.

reply to post by deckdel


I see it as no matter who did it, rebels or govt .forces, the west is going in with this one, take a look at the news
there is a big push to make the case that more war in Syria is the answer, and guess what? people will buy it, or they will fudge the numbers and tell us they are, they made the attempt at hiding there meddling in Syria before
but now that the cats out of the bag they just don't give a snip.

When i saw the video of those sick-f*#k Syrian 'rebels' cutting the heads off of living souls over there... and another of them eating dead victims flesh... I thought 'Why would we support this?'

We need to sit back and watch Syria implode all by themselves.

Originally posted by Darkblade71
The use of chemical weapons is a threat to the world if the world turns a blind eye to it, no matter who is using them.

True.

Too bad that the other eye is already blinded by depleted uranium which I am sure will see extensive use in Syria.

I believe that the USA is aiming for world dominance by use of puppet states,these "Arab spring" terrorists must be western backed as its all too convienent for the big plan,it also means that the president himself is a puppet and someone else is pulling the strings.

Now they are seriously considering military intervention with zero evidence ,It was obviously going to happen they were just warming us up to the idea first.

Obama said chemical weapon use would be the catalyst so It's most likely a western plot to use chemical weapons In the first place.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Except how is the UN going to handle it? They have no military forces except those of the member states, and any action can and probably will be vetoed by Russia. The UN can't handle finding their way out of a paper bag and needs to just go away already.

And if that is the way it goes so be it....

Are we back to "America needs to police the world again"? What are we doing in Darfur with 5 million killed so far?

Originally posted by Darkblade71

The use of chemical weapons is a threat to the world if the world turns a blind eye to it, no matter who is using them.

Really? Why?

So he can kill 100,000 with bullets and bombs and that is ok....

Dead is dead any way I look at it. What makes dying to chemicals somehow worse than blowing a person up?

reply to post by Xtrozero


The UN needs to be replaced by something that one nation doesn't have the ability to unilaterally block any action. As it stands now, nothing can be done by anyone, because someone that doesn't agree has the right to veto any action. So what's the point?

reply to post by Xtrozero


What makes dying by nuclear fire worse than shooting someone then? Dead is dead right?

Blowing something up at least has the potential to limit casualties, and you can target a small area. A chemical weapon, depending on how the wind blows has almost no limiting factor. Yes, both kill people, but a chemical weapon kills for miles where a 500 lb bomb blows up the building it hits, and damages the ones around it. A bomb requires landing near you, and if you're behind a wall, or in a shelter, then you can be protected. A chemical weapon doesn't care where you are, it will still kill you.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

The UN needs to be replaced by something that one nation doesn't have the ability to unilaterally block any action. As it stands now, nothing can be done by anyone, because someone that doesn't agree has the right to veto any action. So what's the point?

The point is it is not our fight anyway you look at it.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What makes dying by nuclear fire worse than shooting someone then? Dead is dead right?

Blowing something up at least has the potential to limit casualties, and you can target a small area. A chemical weapon, depending on how the wind blows has almost no limiting factor. Yes, both kill people, but a chemical weapon kills for miles where a 500 lb bomb blows up the building it hits, and damages the ones around it. A bomb requires landing near you, and if you're behind a wall, or in a shelter, then you can be protected. A chemical weapon doesn't care where you are, it will still kill you.

So we are talking potential now. If 20 people were killed due to chemicals how is that worst than 100,000 killed with bullets? We could say 500 million Chinese armed with single shot rifles is a weapon of mass destruction too, I guess.

How about we wait until he actually does mass killings with chemicals and not just jump on potentials...

reply to post by Xtrozero


Except it's a lot more than "20 people". Thousands have been affected by the chemicals, and hundreds died outright from them.

At what point do we do something? When there's no one left? Do we just let the whole thing spill over into other countries because someone set off a chemical weapon at the border? When do we do something about this?

Originally posted by Xtrozero
As one Senator said, are chemical attacks over there a threat to American security? We should let the UN handle it all and stay out of it.

I don't know who said it, but I like it!

reply to post by Xtrozero

Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction and outlawed.

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CBRN).

Weapon_of_mass_destruction

The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. Its full name is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. The agreement is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is an independent organization based in the Hague, in the Netherlands. The main obligation under the convention is the prohibition of use and production of chemical weapons, as well as the destruction of all chemical weapons. The destruction activities are verified by the OPCW. As of January 2013, around 78% of the (declared) stockpile of chemical weapons has thus been destroyed.[5][6] The convention also has provisions for systematic evaluation of chemical and military plants, as well as for investigations of allegations of use and production of chemical weapons based on intelligence of other state parties. As of June 2013, 189 states are party to the CWC, and another two countries (Israel and Myanmar) have signed but not yet ratified the convention.[1]

Chemical_Weapons_Convention

The world is obligated to respond.

Weapons like these cannot be allowed to be used, plain and simple.

Although I personally don't want it to happen, it has to.
You cannot turn a blind eye to it, or it will become more commonly used.

Coldwar continues
Russian rocket engine export ban could halt US space program
rt.com...

Russia’s Security Council is reportedly considering a ban on supplying the US with powerful RD-180 rocket engines for military communications satellites as Russia focuses on building its own new space launch center, Vostochny, in the Far East.

Its actions like these that tell's us how severe this Syria conflict is.

reply to post by Senduko


Well good, maybe we will have to start building our own equipment again.
We should be in the first place...IMO.

But yeah, the cold war is definetly returning in some form, although not nearly as big as in the past. It is now Russia, and not The Soviet Union, there is a big difference, although we all still have the nukes.