I understand that but I also understand that there's more to the Syrian story than Assad is bad guy that kills his own people. We've heard that before only to find out those accusing the "brutal dictator" not only knew about his use of chemical weapons on his won people but helped facilitate it.
"We've heard that before"...is a mere equivocation. To the extent that you do not perceive nor comprehend a difference between, say Barack Obama and George Bush, you will NEVER see the difference. They are WORLDS apart. Bush was decidedly not right about everything....but, if you HONESTLY cannot perceive the foreign policy difference between him and Obama...than, frankly, you're confused.
Only to turn around and use the atrocity as a pretext to start dropping bombs on him and killing 500,000 people through sanctions.
"Sanctions" don't kill anyone. You are using the wrong words. "Sanctions" have never killed anyone.
Which is by far more people than the "brutal dictator" killed by using poison gas Washington helped to supply him with!
No one claims that Assad has killed
500,000 people with chemical weapons..........if he had...than Pew-Wee-Herman would be competent enough to arrange U.N. Force to oust Assad.....But
500,000 people haven't been killed in Syria, nor alleged killed in Syria by chemical weapons.
It would be incredibly stupid for Assad to do the one thing that he knows would bring the New World Order's . . .excuse me the "international community's" fire down from heaven on his head.
Assad is quite capable of stupidity...so was Hitler, so was Saddam Hussein, Mussolini was borderline retarded.....Stupid people gravitate towards Government and power...it's the only way that they can achieve success. They literally flunk out of "Divinity School"...<---I cite Joseph Stalin and Al Gore as perfect examples (Communists both).
Assad might be a lot of things but stupid he ain't. He saw how Washington built up Saddam and his military when he was useful to them and then turned on him when he was no longer useful.
No...Assad isn't stupid. But, yes, we get it....Foreign Policy often dictates a policy of "Yes he's a jerk....but, at least he's 'our' jerk"....Obama doesn't quite get the nuance of that one. Khadafi was nothing but an ugly pet of U.S. interests...and then Obama ousted him in favour of Extremists. Bush would
NEVER have touched him....Obama did. There's a distinct difference.
Now the people in Washington on the other hand? They think we're all morons that will take their word even after being caught lying through their collectivist teeth to us about practically everything under the sun.
That, at least, is true, no argument there.
Beside the "rebels" have been posting videos on youtube of them handling and experimenting with chemical weapons for some time now.
Yeah...so. Do you take "You-Tube" videos as authoritative? Or, more reasonably, do you think that only a moron would think that posted YouTube videos are convincing evidence of clandestine chemical weapons manufacturing capabilities.
And. . .
Consider this: the only beneficiaries from the atrocity were the rebels, previously losing the war,
I agree here. The "rebels" are now the worst faction we could possibly support. Two years ago, maybe not. But, Livertarians such as yourself cannot perceive the Foreign Policy difference between Republicans such as Bush and Democrats like Obama. Always, you see them as one and the same, they are not.
There's a rule of thumb you Libertarians need to comprehend and it's this:
Democrats are fundamentally treasonous and support any and everything which works
against U.S. National Interest.
Republicans, on the other hand, are indeed (as Libertarians such as yourself rightly point out) often ENTIRELY too "proactive" or "meddlesome" in World affairs....but, they at least have U.S. National Interest at heart. Honestly.....Democrats
REALLY DON'T. I know that's nearly impossible to comprehend, but, the don't.
Obama doesn't want to strengthen the United States...he
HONESTLY wants to weaken it. He hates it...he really does.
There are MANY "bad" Republicans....but, there are
NO "good" Democrats. That's what you don't yet understand.
who now have Britain and America ready to intervene on their side.
No, they don't. Britain will not back the U.S. on this one. You don't understand that the difference is...."Bush" vs. "Obama".
The Brits would have backed Bush...they will not back Obama. There's a difference. It doesn't matter whether the U.S. is "right" or "wrong"...it's a matter of how we've treated the most gracious and loyal ally we've ever had. And, frankly, Obama has abused and insulted them, and he's done so on purpose. He's treasonous. He legitimately hates them (and us really) and he's made it show.
While there seems to be little doubt that chemical weapons were used, there is doubt about who deployed them. It is important to remember that Assad has been accused of using poison gas against civilians before. But on that occasion, Carla del Ponte, a UN commissioner on Syria, concluded that the rebels, not Assad, were probably responsible.
Agreed....We cannot be positive about who used those weapons, which is why unilateral warmongering freaks like Obama need to be stopped. We don't know who launched those weapons. Thus, action in Syria is
at this point in NO WAY in U.S. interest.
