10 Chemical Weapons Attacks Washington Doesn\'t Want You to Talk About.

10 Chemical Weapons Attacks Washington Doesn't Want You to Talk About. Looks like the US government ignored the "red line" several times or has looked the other way when one of their vassals have used such weapons on their own people.I know,I know that was back in the Cold War had to hold off the Commies some how.

reply to post by mike dangerously


Sory You Forget One Mr.Mike..
Syria..

The corrupt Obama Administration will have several answers.

1. It's irrelevant

2. What difference at this point does it make.

3. It's not in our calculus.

4. "We' didn't build that.

5. Republicans won't talk to us.

6. It was the video.

7. Well they had to try it to see what's in it.

i love the picture that leads off the article the op linked to. That photo is how Bush2 knew they had chemical weapons in Iraq. We gave them to Hussein. Rumsfeld went there to broker the deal, then they used them. Do we think they wouldn't have saved some, or just made more?

Wasn't Rummy also involved with the think tank group, "prospect for the New American Century"?

Aren't OP's supposed to provide more information that this? This OP didn't even bring up or comment on a single one of the 10 attacks. No opinion on or description of any of them.

Anyone can start a thread and just link an article. Is that the new standard?

reply to post by cheesy
Very true,Mr.Cheesy.Like I said we have looked the other way with the rest of the so-called "International Community."For years.This talk about red lines is just nonsense.

reply to post by xuenchen
You forgot reason #8: Your not a true liberal! You Closet Racist!!! Isolationist!!! Expect to hear that as the street protests ramp up.Gotta discredit any anti-war activist in any way,shape and form.

maybe it`s just a coincidence but iran very recently elected a new leader, august 5 2013,to be exact:

TEHRAN, Iran – President Hassan Rouhani’s inaugural speech and proposed cabinet picks offered hope to those within Iran and around the world looking for a change from his hard-line predecessor Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

worldnews.nbcnews.com...

A new moderate leader and cabinet is much less likely to be able to deal with a situation like this,which makes it more likely that Iran will not intervene in any meaningful way.
The west never tried to intervene in syria, like this, when ahmedinejad was running things in iran.

less than 3 weeks after iran elects a more moderate leader the west starts beating the war drums for military intervention in syria,coincidence? I don`t think so.

reply to post by Tardacus


Iran's president is more of a title than a leadership position; the supreme leader decides everything, the president acts more like a spokesman/public figure. Don't get played by the semantics; Iran is already engaging in Syria through proxy warfare. I would look more towards Russia to directly intervene.

Regardless, the downfall of Assad is not a good thing. The last thing the ME needs is more instability and a power vacuum.