Paul Ryan on Syria. The art of the flip flop

So the Geneva Conventions do not require that the US bomb any country that has chemical weapons.

Your understanding of history is "interesting." Deficient. But interesting. It is like a Rorschach test.

- - - Updated - - -

Were there any other reasons? Was Iraq violating the terms of the cease fire, for example?
And did any Democrats vote for the authorization for the use of force, you know, the declaration of war?

 

Any you somehow assumed this from my statement....how?

Dumb.

AboveAlpha

 

Did you not say it would require Rangers or other special operators to secure the chemical weapons? When we put armed forces inside another nation without that nation's consent what would you call it?

Dumb indeed.

 

Is this the kind of sources you had in mind?

Per your ICRC link: "There is increasing evidence that it may now be unlawful to retaliate in kind to another State’s use of chemical weapons. There are still 21 reservations to the Geneva Gas Protocol stating that if an adverse party (and in some cases that party’s ally) does not respect the Protocol, the ratifying State will no longer consider itself bound by it."

So where does International law require the United States, or let's say any Geneva signatory member, to respond to a use of Chemical Weapons with military action? I mean, you are saying that it's an international red line, so I'm trying to find out which parties are responsible for responding to that red line.

 

It's not that the information was public domain (which you've not demonstrated), it was that you copied it word for word and didn't attribute the source. That does make me think that you never really had any arguments in this thread to begin with. You probably just googled things and copied and pasted them, to hid the fact that you were ignorant of a subject you pretended to lord over. It's pretty clear to me that I've more basic knowledge of international law and it's application than you do, and I'm just a layman. But it took you think long (in a discussion that's been going on for weeks) to attempt to Google sources to back up your claims, and as you can see, you failed on that account as well.

Calling me a name isn't very nice. Shame on you! Rather than me finding another thread to "slither through" why don't you find yourself a thread in which you have some base knowledge of the subject?

 

The nice fellow from Alabama needs to tell us where the Syrians ever denied that they had chemical weapons, or why it is wrong for Syria to have chemical weapons when the USA, Israelis and their Talmu-Islamic terrorists have & use chemical weapons.

Furthermore, when the current regime announced it's red line on chemical weapons use in Syria, he simultaneously gave a green light to the US backed terrorists to use chemical weapons.

 

How old are you? I have to think that you're very young. The information regarding the ban on poison gas goes back to the end of WWI. My grandfather fought in that war. One of the most recognizable pictures of that time was a doughboy wearing a gas mask. Films of allied troops running through trench warfare amidst clouds of gas. Even at a very young age, I asked my grandparents why the soldiers wore those masks. I was told about the poison gas, and how it was banned after the war. I later learned in grade school about the use of poison gas. It was in our history books. We learned about the Geneva Conventions in Social Studies and History classes. It's in probably every encyclopedia and today on Wiki. There are countless pictures. https://www.google.com/search?q=poi...APiuYHoAw&ved=0CE4QsAQ&biw=1024&bih=641&dpr=1



It's pretty common knowledge to most of the world. You may not have gotten the memo.

Took me long?? Really? Because I don't respond to your ignorant questions in a timely fashion to meet you expectations? If you have doubts about any of this, it's really possible for you to look it up. That is if you didn't get the information in school.

I don't respond to your crap because you're a troll.

I originated this thread. Each of your arguments have been disposed of like a used tissue. The entire argument of yours that Obama is a huge failure, because he was able to force the removal of Syria's CW without firing a shot, has rendered you to a petty bag of bile. So now you find yourself reduced to attempts of accusing me of posting information that has been in common knowledge for almost 100 years. And none of this has anything to do with the thread which is; " Paul Ryan on Syria. The art of the flip flop". So in your own little way, you've decided that you'll try to hijack the thread into an irrelevant matter of pettiness, over crediting information that is public knowledge...to everyone but you. You're the kind of person that would criticize somebody who wore loafers, for not wearing tie shoes, and if he wore tie shoes accuse him of wasting time by not wearing loafers. You're petty. And frankly...I don't answer you, because your petty.

I've authored two books. In both I credit the sources for information I get and quote the source, because I make money from the books, and you don't profit from somebody else's work without crediting them. I don't get paid for this. And the information is in the public domain. You don't even have to pay for it to access it. You could do it easily. Add to that the fact that none of the posts are presented as my own creation, and it demonstrates that you're simply trolling. I have no time for your nonsense. You never post anything of substance. When you do, I'll consider it.

 

Explain how the one thing, leads to the other. How does denying CW use to Syria give a "green light" to somebody else to use CW? The ban on CW goes back to 1925. It applies to everyone. And when did the US or Israel use poison gas?

 

Look at what you asked me.

AboveAlpha

 

Awww nerts!

You finally figured out I was young? Gosh golly mister, it sure took you long enough! How does it feel to meet your intellectual superior that's only 12 years old?

Now I didn't intend to hijack the thread, but when you plagiarize that demands to be brought to the attention of the reading public.And clearly for a published author (and I assuming you're not counting the Penthouse letters), you seem to be remarkably ignorant of what plagiarism is. I learned that in 6th grade, which was just last year by the way. Miss Crabapple made it clear that plagiarism was bad; naughty in fact. Tommy Smerts in my class made the same arguments that you made when he copied his paper on the Roman Empire off of Wikipedia. He said the information was common knowledge, and he was reaping no financial benefit from it, therefore fair use applied. However Miss Crabapple pointed out that fair use didn't apply since Tommy didn't identify the source in his paper, not gave the author credit. He tried to pass the work off as his own, just as you did. If I wanted to make a point about the Roman Empire I wouldn't just copy/paste Gibbons, post it here, and let everyone think I was really brilliant. Do you know why I wouldn't do that?

Because that would be plagiarism, which is what you did.

You've failed to dispose of my arguments. You merely determined based on your own head that this was the greatest foreign policy coup since the Louisiana Purchase, when no one, not even the left, is buying that. You really showed your ignorance on international law and it's only been after several weeks have you even started googling about it to find out what you had been talking about for weeks. Between the red line and Obama: Foreign Policy Master line, it's just you and the administration out there.

Say, you don't work for he Obama White House do you?

 

Okay, "Did any of those references say we, the US would bomb places that have chemical weapons?"

So did they? You responded with rangers or special operators.