PF Question . . .

Why shouldn't Syria have chemical weapons? Israel has them.

 

Because it's not about fairness. It's about control. No reason we should let our enemies be able to empower themselves to be a formidable threat. Bomb the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of them.

 

Alrighty then, since the US has signed the chemical weapons convention, but neither Syria or Israel has, how does this become a US fight? And why should we automatically jump to the conclusion that Israel is our friend and Syria is our enemy. Israel has never shown anything to me.

 

Why don't we allow 4-year-olds to drive cars?

 

Because a few people made up an arbitrary age limit for those who are capable and incapable of driving a vehicle.

 

The US has them so why even bring a third party into the discussion?

 

Neither should have them but at the end of the day its about who has the power, military or otherwise, to enforce their own will or law (or whatever you want to call it).

Thats why Iraq and Iran are not allowed to have nukes, according to usa. Of course china can have nukes because america is in no position to stop them. The chinese are just sitting back and allowing america to dictate global terms, laughing. laughing at how the americans are proving to the world what europeans already knew, retards.

 

complained about Israel having them. But now Syria is using them on her own people. Isn't that worth complaining about?

 

How do you know that it was the Syrian government that used them?

 

Do you know they didn't? If not, where did they come from? They don't leave chemical weapons just laying around for anyone to pick up and use.

 

I don't know who did it...which is why I don't go around saying who did it.

However, taking a logical approach, who had the most to gain by chemical weapons being used in this conflict?

 

very good question

 

Pray tell, who?

 

assad?

 

I'm asking you. Do you think that the Syrian government had anything to gain by using chemical weapons? Did they have anything to lose if they did use chemical weapons?

You've already stated that it was the Syrian government. How do you know this?

The bottom line is that we don't know who did it and there are more questions than answers, yet that doesn't stop the war mongers from going off half-cocked.

 

Really? What did he gain other than the possibility of being attacked by the world's largest military?

 

To win the civil war.

Why would america attack him for defeating the 'rebels'?

 

Win the civil war by killing children with chemical weapons and potentially bringing the hammer down on themselves by way of The Great Satan and his missiles?

Hmmm, sounds illogical to me.

 

unfortunately innocent ppl die in civil wars. it happens all the time. how much collateral damage have americans brushed aside?

just gonna make americans look like hypocrits

 

And the day we stop protecting Europe, they're done. What do you call China where most of the population lives in sweatshops? Intelligent

 

Fish....

The "fish" comment has as much to do with your post as your post had to do with the one you were responding to. (Just to clarify)

 

exactly

 

Well we and the Israelis have had people in Syria since at least April and probably before that.

 

How about discouraging others to join the resistance, and scare those that are fighting against the government?

If it's the resistance, where did they get the weapons? If they have them I would say our troops in Afghanistan can be in real trouble.

 

If we over throw the Syrian government, are we going to have another Libya or Egypt? We don't have any friends in the Middle East. Even Israel is pressuring us to bomb Iran before they get nuclear weapons. How are we going to face that?.