troops in syria?

You really honestly think the united states gives a fuck about Syria?, then explain to me why it didn't interfere with the syrian civil war back when it started in march-april of 2011. let me answer this for you- it's because they didn't have a reason/excuse to invade. why you might ask they want to invade? pretty obvious for the resources. mainly oil.

Also since this basic argument is about syrian government using chemical attacks on it's own people, have we forgotten what the us did with chemical attacks? let me remind you.

1. The U.S. Military Dumped 20 Million Gallons of Chemicals on Vietnam from 1962 - 1971

During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military sprayed 20 million gallons of chemicals, including the very toxic Agent Orange, on the forests and farmlands of Vietnam and neighboring countries, deliberately destroying food supplies, shattering the jungle ecology, and ravaging the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Vietnam estimates that as a result of the decade-long chemical attack, 400,000 people were killed or maimed, 500,000 babies have been born with birth defects, and 2 million have suffered from cancer or other illnesses. In 2012, the Red Cross estimated that one million people in Vietnam have disabilities or health problems related to Agent Orange.

2. Washington Attacked Iraqi Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2004

In 2004, journalists embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq began reporting the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah against Iraqi insurgents. First the military lied and said that it was only using white phosphorus to create smokescreens or illuminate targets. Then it admitted to using the volatile chemical as an incendiary weapon. At the time, Italian television broadcaster RAI aired a documentary entitled, "Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre," including grim video footage and photographs, as well as eyewitness interviews with Fallujah residents and U.S. soldiers revealing how the U.S. government indiscriminately rained white chemical fire down on the Iraqi city and melted women and children to death.

3. The CIA Helped Saddam Hussein Massacre Iranians and Kurds with Chemical Weapons in 1988

CIA records now prove that Washington knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons (including sarin, nerve gas, and mustard gas) in the Iran-Iraq War, yet continued to pour intelligence into the hands of the Iraqi military, informing Hussein of Iranian troop movements while knowing that he would be using the information to launch chemical attacks. At one point in early 1988, Washington warned Hussein of an Iranian troop movement that would have ended the war in a decisive defeat for the Iraqi government. By March an emboldened Hussein with new friends in Washington struck a Kurdish village occupied by Iranian troops with multiple chemical agents, killing as many as 5,000 people and injuring as many as 10,000 more, most of them civilians. Thousands more died in the following years from complications, diseases, and birth defects.

4. The Army Tested Chemicals on Residents of Poor, Black St. Louis Neighborhoods in The 1950s

In the early 1950s, the Army set up motorized blowers on top of residential high-rises in low-income, mostly black St. Louis neighborhoods, including areas where as much as 70% of the residents were children under 12. The government told residents that it was experimenting with a smokescreen to protect the city from Russian attacks, but it was actually pumping the air full of hundreds of pounds of finely powdered zinc cadmium sulfide. The government admits that there was a second ingredient in the chemical powder, but whether or not that ingredient was radioactive remains classified. Of course it does. Since the tests, an alarming number of the area's residents have developed cancer. In 1955, Doris Spates was born in one of the buildings the Army used to fill the air with chemicals from 1953 - 1954. Her father died inexplicably that same year, she has seen four siblings die from cancer, and Doris herself is a survivor of cervical cancer.

5. Police Fired Tear Gas at Occupy Protesters in 2011

The savage violence of the police against Occupy protesters in 2011 was well documented, and included the use of tear gas and other chemical irritants. Tear gas is prohibited for use against enemy soldiers in battle by the Chemical Weapons Convention. Can't police give civilian protesters in Oakland, California the same courtesy and protection that international law requires for enemy soldiers on a battlefield?

6. The FBI Attacked Men, Women, and Children With Tear Gas in Waco in 1993

At the infamous Waco siege of a peaceful community of Seventh Day Adventists, the FBI pumped tear gas into buildings knowing that women, children, and babies were inside. The tear gas was highly flammable and ignited, engulfing the buildings in flames and killing 49 men and women, and 27 children, including babies and toddlers. Remember, attacking an armed enemy soldier on a battlefield with tear gas is a war crime. What kind of crime is attacking a baby with tear gas?

7. The U.S. Military Littered Iraq with Toxic Depleted Uranium in 2003

In Iraq, the U.S. military has littered the environment with thousands of tons of munitions made from depleted uranium, a toxic and radioactive nuclear waste product. As a result, more than half of babies born in Fallujah from 2007 - 2010 were born with birth defects. Some of these defects have never been seen before outside of textbooks with photos of babies born near nuclear tests in the Pacific. Cancer and infant mortality have also seen a dramatic rise in Iraq. According to Christopher Busby, the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, "These are weapons which have absolutely destroyed the genetic integrity of the population of Iraq." After authoring two of four reports published in 2012 on the health crisis in Iraq, Busby described Fallujah as having, "the highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied."

8. The U.S. Military Killed Hundreds of Thousands of Japanese Civilians with Napalm from 1944 - 1945

Napalm is a sticky and highly flammable gel which has been used as a weapon of terror by the U.S. military. In 1980, the UN declared the use of napalm on swaths of civilian population a war crime. That's exactly what the U.S. military did in World War II, dropping enough napalm in one bombing raid on Tokyo to burn 100,000 people to death, injure a million more, and leave a million without homes in the single deadliest air raid of World War II.

9. The U.S. Government Dropped Nuclear Bombs on Two Japanese Cities in 1945

Although nuclear bombs may not be considered chemical weapons, I believe we can agree they belong to the same category. They certainly disperse an awful lot of deadly radioactive chemicals. They are every bit as horrifying as chemical weapons if not more, and by their very nature, suitable for only one purpose: wiping out an entire city full of civilians. It seems odd that the only regime to ever use one of these weapons of terror on other human beings has busied itself with the pretense of keeping the world safe from dangerous weapons in the hands of dangerous governments.


And you're going to tell me that they're angry at syrian government for using chemical attacks?

lmfao.

 

If you're going to plagiarizer word-for-word, leave Something For All.

The only relevant article from the sources above, Washington Attacked Iraqi Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2004, was a technique used only against Iraqi insurgents as a weapon of war, such as bullets, bombs, nukes, etc. These methods were used against the enemy, not civilians.

Syria attempted genocide vs their population, in case you're unaware of the situation, which i'm not entirely convinced you are as shown above.

 

Russia can't actually attack anyone should we attack Syria, it's all in the news.

 

yes i know i posted it from an article, doesn't mean it isn't hypocrisy .

edit: i have nothing against you, but it seems i have the exact opposite opinion then yours.(also i know what the situation is, even tho you state you don't think so.)

also i'm not sure you know what they're invading for exactly.it's not because of attempted genocide (exaggerated claim by news reporters because it simply was a chemical attack (just like the us did multiple times.)) but it's because there's a worldwide ban on the use of chemical weapons.

 

they can actually because russia has veto, in order for the us to attack they need all the members of the UNSC to agree, but since russia doesn't and has veto they can't.
edit V2: well i'm not sure if they can't attack the us if they attack, but vice versa the us can't attack if russia doesn't agree

edit; soz for double post but cbf

 

It means it's plagiarism - invalid response due to lack of information or education regarding the topic. Meaning, you're using someones work to make your point because you cant.

Uhm...

If a country were to use chemical weapons against it's own population - please refer back to genocide

I'm not entirely convinced you know what side you're arguing for.

You're arguing my and your own points my friend.

 

There is no right or wrong answer. There will always be pros and cons to any serious decision but one has to be made. invade or not invade that is the question. If we don't invade then obama's statement about no more chemical attacks will see him as a coward and a liar. If he does invade well then that a whole new can of worms. I was in the army and have been deployed. So im not just stroking my keyboard. I know how it feels and how many lives will hang in the balance.

 

Protecting your country takes priority over being called names.

 

quoted like i did so it doesn't take alot of space, back on topic.

It wasn't really plagiarism, i never took credit/stated i wrote it myself. i used it in order to state what the us did in the past. plagiarism is if i stated it's my work and/or took credit for it, which i didn't. just because i used it in order to further prove my point doesn't mean it's plagiarism.

next 4 quotes, is paraphrasing. I know they are invading because they used "chemical weapons" (same as the us did, but then again since no other country in the world spends as much on the military on the US, nobody is going to attack/attempt to attack it.)

They are not invading due to genocide (attacking it's own people) so you can remove your reference to genocide completely. the only reason they're planning to attack is due to the use of chemical warfare which again, like i stated above the us have done themselves (that's where hypocrisy kicks in)

It's pretty obvious from all my other posts that i'm against the situation, and i'm not as clueless as you think about the situation. What i can see is that you're obviously in favour of the attack yet you can't accept the fact that it makes utterly no sence. You keep acting as if the US are going to invade for the benefit of the country and aid them, when in reality all they're going to do is find an excuse like i stated before to invade and leech the country's resources, same as happened in Afghanistan.

Also, you stated they'e invading and you're in favour because they're doing this to their own people. so in your words it's acceptable to use chemical warfare against your enemies/ so called "enemies". actually no.

​

as you can see it clearly states ;
"Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction"

notice these few words, "and Use of Chemical Weapons". using chemical weapons on your own people, or using them on your enemies still is banned. so your reasoning of using them on your "enemies" isn't a viable excuse to use it.

 

edit: this continues to my above post. i wrote this at night on my phone.

Alright, it's become to the point that's a bit annoying when you think you actually know more then everyone else honestly and state that others don't know as much as you about the situation so ill reply to that.Syria, everywhere on the news you see headlines stating that Syria is using chemical attacks on their own people, and now everyone wants to act as they give a single fuck but I actually found some interesting facts about Syria and what's going on. Syria is like Korea, its unofficially split up. In the northern region there are Syrians that call themselves "Kurds" which can also be found in turkey and Iran. These people are simply the same as saying a person is North Korean and a person is South Korean. Just because they have both Korean in the name doesn't mean they're the same. The issue was that these people in north of Syria want their own country, they don't want to be a part of another country and they want to be independent, and as protests they do terroristic acts like placing bombs on cars. Now the Syrian government made a 50\50 move which was using chemical attacks, it was 50% wrong because chemical attacks are banned worldwide but using the same logic as your previous post, since they are in a war and these "terrorists" attack them they're attacking back. ( same as the Americans did in Afghanistan with white phosphorus)

Now that I explained to you what the actual situation is let's move on. Israel and Saudi Arabia are merely puppets of America so they're obviously going to agree. You're probably going to ask me, "and why are they puppets?!" Well let me explain to you, after world war 2 America and England decided to give the Jews an area where they can build a country, fun part was that they agreed to give them an area which wasn't even there, but it was Palestine's. of course the Palestinians wherent happy so they where always fighting with Israel. America of course stepped in and gave Israel a shitload of military power, so much that the Israelis completely demolished Egypt in just 6 days. Israel is merely a puppet of America and does/agrees to anything he Americans state. And Saudi Arabia has a lot of business with America so it will always back up its most important country.

Back on Syria, Russia currently has the VETO vote in the United Nations Security Council. In the security council it isn't run via who has the most votes, they must all agree. Since Russia has the veto it means that till it votes yes they can't attack. Now of course the reporters fucked up what the Russians really stated. Russia state that if they ignore their vote and attack Syria, they're going to provide military weapons to Syria but they NEVER sated they're going to attack America.

Now lets move on to Israel, America already don't give a fuck about anybody, and Israel Military wise is even worse, Israel already moved all their missiles to the north and if they want to or not they will attack Syria, even if the United Nations Security Council doesn't agree.

Now that I stated everything I know that's proven about his topic lets move on to yourself. Your logic on how chemical attacks should be used is honestly disgusting, and your ego in your posts is even worse. You state people are clueless yet you only read headlines you see on the news. You proceeded to try attack me because I posted an article about Chemical attacks American military used, yet your only argument against it is "because they where our enemies". Chemical attacks should never be used, enemies or not. It's a fucking joke about America's statement to bomb Syria over chemical attacks. The deceleration of a world wide ban on chemical attacks was signed by 65 country's and even America signed it. America proceeded to use white phosphorus chemical bombs that once explode burn the entire area around them and had no real explanation. Now that another country uses chemical attacks they go ape shit. Syria has oil resources and that's the only reason America is going to invade, using his chemical attack issue Adam excuse. And also the only reason America wasn't "prosecuted" for using white phosphorus chemical bombs is pretty obvious, it's the worlds largest military that has a few country's around the world to back it up.

Also lets add another pointer into this, if you think they are invading Syria for the human rights or whatever bullshit excuse they state, I suggest you go watch a few videos of their military camp In Cuba. America made a jail in Cuba in order to torture
"Terrorists". Since Cuba isn't in American soils then American humanity laws don't count for there.

It's extremely amusing watching you argue with that strong patriotism you have, but either way you're not completely right.

 

I'm in the army , stationed here at Bragg . As far as I know we aren't going anywhere to have troops there ... But who knows , it could change :O

 

Syria is willing to work a diplomatic way with the U.S after what John kerry stated, but seems obama dosent wanna work things out and REALLY WANTS TO BOMB SYRIA ??

 

Its disgusting what America does invade countrys then leave and create a huge chaos for the local people to rebuild their infrastructure

 

they just want to go in for oil or to cripple iran

 

to be honest, we have a lot of troops getting stationed in South Korea, not Syria lol and before Syria came up, we already had troops there.. so yea, i shouldnt be saying this... but w.e

Pvt. Marco

 

America will not open a attack on Syria.