It's different now. Ignore hides it completely.
Even when someone quotes the person you have on ignore?
You're really sure? The reality here is that I can't see who you were quoting in your post...and there is no place to click in my browser to reveal what you quoted...I'm using Chrome if that has anything to do with it.I'm sure you know who I was quoting, since you can see it in my post. Putting someone on ignore doesn't erase other people's quoting that person, which is why I never bother to put people on ignore. I'm pretty sure you could also open up ivwshane's post by clicking on it, assuming it works the same way it did under the old forum software.
It's kind of irrelevant who posted it anyway. It isn't his commentary that matters. It's the fact that he quoted you saying one thing years ago when we had one POTUS, and something totally opposite today. You seem to have changed your position in precisely the same manner as Trump. I guess great "minds" think alike.
I hear you. But over 100,000 people have died in this civil war so far and roughly 10,000 have been civilian women and children. The fact that about 1,400 have died to chemical warfare is horrible...but the 100,000+ who've been killed through "conventional means" is horrible as well, and the ~600 who've died due to torture is especially horrible. Drawing a red line at 1400 deaths is arbitrary in my opinion. Dead is dead and war is hell.
I wish the rebels were the good guys here and that we could support them in good conscious...but the rebels are highly fragmented and the extremist groups within will likely be running things after Assad falls. If we attack Assad and substanially affect the balance of power in Syria, we will surely have innocent blood on our hands....whether or not we directly kill these innocents as collateral damage in our attempt to teach Assad a lesson or we indirectly kill thousands of innocents with the inevitable war aftermath and the religious persecutions/killings that will surely follow with a regime change that we helped orchestrate.
I can't believe Obama wants to do this.
As much as I hate saying it..I would suggest a limited 'hurtful' strike on the Syrian AF as previously noted...and then wash our hands of it. Bottom line the usage of chemical weapons is unacceptable, and like it or not ( I personally don't), we're a world leader and have to take a leadership role in immediately addressing such evil. And as I sit here saying this, I realize that I really hate saying this. And where the f**k is the UN?
Eight years of empty rhetoric and the pursuit of diplomatic solutions has failed and accomplished NOTHING. But apparently you're OK continuing with this NOTHING approach as Assad continues to target civilians and children with chemical weapons to suffer and die horribly. I highly value the lives of our soldiers and would never want to put them in harm's way unnecessarily...but damn, these are war crimes of epic proportions. Do you not value the lives of the innocent victims as well?
And if Assad continues to use chemical weapons? What then? Just turn off the TV when the images start appearing of children profusely bleeding from the mouth? How many more of these horrific incidents must happen before you're willing to "take that chance"?
Even when someone quotes the person you have on ignore?
Yeah, the crazy "genius" who humps my leg may as well not exist. No quotes, nada. I like it.
OK, since I'm not on DSF's ignore list (yet), let's take another crack at this.
DSF on the use of chemical weapons in Syria and whether or not we should retaliate, in the year 2013:
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...the-assad-regime.2340815/page-2#post-35455903
DSF today, after 3 years and an election have taken place:
We suddenly have a strong moral reason to retaliate for the use of chemical weapons. What a difference a few years makes.
And:
Funny, DSF wanted Obama to do exactly that, NOTHING, back in 2013...
Just like Trump.
I can't speak for anyone else but me but I was deadset against Obama going against Assad and the reason is that I did not want another war. Boots on the ground were not ruled out to my satisfaction. Now things are somewhat different because there was no telegraphing of intent to Assad and we went in and left with minimal loss of life. After the fact it seems a reasonable response in context. That does not mean I care for any of this. Many people have seen too much death and misery to crave more.
Anyway I was against before I accepted this specific action for the apparent purpose. If that means some believe I'm a hypocrite, so be it but times and situations change.
You're really sure? The reality here is that I can't see who you were quoting in your post...and there is no place to click in my browser to reveal what you quoted...I'm using Chrome if that has anything to do with it.
Anyway, as I said, I would normally love to respond but it appears that you're also quite "sure" that I have no possible defense to comments I made years ago. Seems like you're in good company with ivwshane..."great" minds do think alike indeed.
No one I know has said he didn't. We also locked up Japanese in WWII. Neither had anything to do with the Iraq War other than propaganda and recall that UN inspectors rounded up weapons and materials from that era. The Bush Administration had to resort to lies about those aluminum tubes after experts told them they weren't suited for that use. Nuclear program? Someone found an old rotor buried in a yard. These were the WMDs of Saddam at the time of invasion. Conflict with Iraq was a desired goal, not a necessity and the truth be damned.
To date, 500 weapons munitions which contain potentially lethal mustard and pure Sarin nerve agent—classified as WMDs—were recovered and destroyed; In 2006, 2,400 nerve-agent rockets were found in a single compound; In October 2014, the New York Times reported that U.S. servicemen had been exposed and injured during the disposal and destruction of 4,990 chemical weapons that had been discovered in Iraq; In November 2014, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons reported the recovery and destruction of an additional 4,530 aging chemical weapons by American forces; In February 2015, The New York Times revealed that following the recovery of 17 Borak in 2004 and early 2005, the United States began acquiring and destroying Borak rockets leading to the destruction of more than 400 Borak rockets filled with Sarin. No WMD? Really? By some counts, there have been over 9,500 WMD's found since 2002. And where were the trucks, and mobile labs seen leaving Iraq bound for??? Hmmmm?
I just looked at the old 2013 thread. Doesn't seem reasonable to compare that. Thread title is "Should the U.S. attack the Assad regime?"
That's very broad and some people clearly took it to mean heavy involvement. I think if the thread title was more like "Should the US bomb, using missiles launched from afar, a small air base responsible for launching a chem weap attack and get out?" it would be more apples-apples.
Fern
You mean the leftover pre- 1991 material? Those came from the mobile weapons factories from the active program? The thing Bush claimed was going on?
So where's the program and the nukes?
There was no active WMD program. Absolutely none of the specific claims made by the Bush administration, as outlined by Powell in his speech to the UN, were accurate. What they had was lots of old artillery shells with traces of chemicals in them. And apparently, at least some of them were manufactured with the help of the United States.
Every time we talk about this someone has to come in here and repeat this canard about how these rusty shells with chemical traces somehow vindicates the dishonest claims of an active WMD program with tons of stored Sarin and VX, none of which existed.
Why the heck people insist on pulling that is beyond me. It's like they think no one has read up on this stuff.
Yes and no. You can see the replies people have made to those on your ignore list but you cannot see the blocked person they are quoting UNLESS you click the hyperlink that says "show ignored content". Same applies to OP'S when reading the main P&N page of topics. Those on your block list who have OP'S.. cannot be seen unless scrolling to the bottom of the page and again clicking to show ignored content then voila page refreshes and you can again see them.Even when someone quotes the person you have on ignore?
Even when someone quotes the person you have on ignore?
I can't speak for anyone else but me but I was deadset against Obama going against Assad and the reason is that I did not want another war. Boots on the ground were not ruled out to my satisfaction. Now things are somewhat different because there was no telegraphing of intent to Assad and we went in and left with minimal loss of life. After the fact it seems a reasonable response in context. That does not mean I care for any of this. Many people have seen too much death and misery to crave more.
Anyway I was against before I accepted this specific action for the apparent purpose. If that means some believe I'm a hypocrite, so be it but times and situations change.
Before we went in we warned the Russians and you damn will know they told the Syrians
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/34948438/russia-warned-before-us-attack-in-syria/#page1
We could have left a horse head in Assad's bed and saved a bunch of money.Of course we let them know because the goal wasn't to kill people. That was about an hour before the attack, not a statement well in advance that we were going to take specific actions. As I've said more than once this was a message not an attack to maim and kill as many as we could.