Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Per the NY Times--no vote would be tough love for Obama, good for America [View all]rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)28. So what is the statute of limitations on use of chemical weapons?
Are we forgiven for their use in Vietnam? How about our use on Iran via puppet Hussein? Shouldnt we agree that our use of phosphorous bombs and shells would also qualify as chemical weapon use?
We are in no position to judge. And we arent. We are using Assad's use of chemical weapons as justification for furthering our agenda in the Middle East. Ask McCain, Graham, Lieberman, Kristol, or any of the neocon's that would love it if we expanded the civil war.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
62 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Per the NY Times--no vote would be tough love for Obama, good for America [View all]
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
OP
Of course not. half the numbnutz in the House still think Iraq was a swell idea.
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#7
We should be thankful to have a president that understood that unilateral decisions
Baitball Blogger
Sep 2013
#10
That's ridiculous. This belongs in an international court, not in the court of the US deciders
dkf
Sep 2013
#13
International courts are a joke and not an effective argument against military strikes.
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#18
The US cannot be expected to be the sole enforcer of international treaties. That is ridiculous.
dkf
Sep 2013
#21
That's right. We have got to come to terms with the fact that sometimes a bad thing happens in this
totodeinhere
Sep 2013
#42
Or bad things in the rest of the world we can do something about (with positive results)...
deurbano
Sep 2013
#48
If the Geneva Conventions depend on the US illegally bombing other countries
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#16
Oh, please. You're describing Superman, not the US government. No heroes here, pal. n/t
ocpagu
Sep 2013
#58
Yeah, they are desperate asking Obama to save them by striking them with missiles... n/t
ocpagu
Sep 2013
#60
I actually see this as a way out for Obama, he did not jump when the report went out Assad had used
Thinkingabout
Sep 2013
#17
I have been arguing that our official position on Syria's use of chemical weapons should be
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#29
Maybe "so what" is not the best answer. But spending 200 million on bombing Syria is
rhett o rick
Sep 2013
#35
There is a continuum between bombing someone and callous indifference/nt
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2013
#37
Humanitarian aid to the refugees is a good thing. I hope that we can all agree that the world
totodeinhere
Sep 2013
#43
My brother says this is all due to Bush's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Mellow Drama
Sep 2013
#38