General Discussion

lumpy

(13,704 posts)

90. Hell, the only proof they will accept would have to come from ???

Reply to KittyWampus (Reply #10)

Fri Sep 6, 2013, 04:43 PM

Sep 2013

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

177 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What if we don't do anything about Syria, and [View all] MineralMan Sep 2013 OP

Oh, so it's been proven Assad did this attack? leftstreet Sep 2013 #1

The evidence certainly points in that direction. MineralMan Sep 2013 #3

'Points,' but hasn't been established. Okay n/t leftstreet Sep 2013 #6

I didn't say it had been established. I said "apparently," MineralMan Sep 2013 #18

So your whole OP is just a 'what if' leftstreet Sep 2013 #31

It was clearly presented as a "what if" question. MineralMan Sep 2013 #39

Okay. What if Assad didn't do it? leftstreet Sep 2013 #45

You know, if you didn't even read the first two words MineralMan Sep 2013 #47

+100 It hasn't even been established if Assad did it the first time. avaistheone1 Sep 2013 #79

Lots of what ifs on your part also lumpy Sep 2013 #82

It looks as if they probably did the Damascus one but throughout... Little Star Sep 2013 #127

Right, DU'ers aren't in denial. Thanks for proving part of the point of my OP. KittyWampus Sep 2013 #4

So the House is in denial, too? leftstreet Sep 2013 #9

Good question? Do you know the answer? MineralMan Sep 2013 #14

because regardless if Assad did it or not, they don't want bombing? KittyWampus Sep 2013 #16

What other options did Obama put on the table? leftstreet Sep 2013 #36

Do you have to have someone else answer your questions instead of doing research yourself? lumpy Sep 2013 #92

Perhaps because those in the House are only interested in the next campaign, they have a lot lumpy Sep 2013 #107

That is fucking offensive to DUers leftstreet Sep 2013 #110

Sorry, just being snarky like so many of your compatriots. I apologize I don't want to be offensive. lumpy Sep 2013 #118

kick jessie04 Sep 2013 #144

I was thinking the same thing. Fantastic Anarchist Sep 2013 #48

what's the difference who did it?SOMEONE violated international humanitarian law. Sunlei Sep 2013 #153

We're going to have to send a lot of aid to neighboring countries, for one thing. KittyWampus Sep 2013 #2

Yes. I put it a little more conditionally, MineralMan Sep 2013 #7

First, you need to prove Assad conducted the first attack. ocpagu Sep 2013 #5

See, how can DU'ers really be this unaware? Germany, France etc have in fact agreed w/intelligence KittyWampus Sep 2013 #10

Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil disagree leftstreet Sep 2013 #15

Add Venezuela and Guyana among those who explicitly opposed. There are more. n/t ocpagu Sep 2013 #29

So what. They have not been directly involved, with the exception of Russia and their involvment lumpy Sep 2013 #102

Oh yeah, we are as unaware as you are gullible SomethingFishy Sep 2013 #30

According to the article posted- the questions remaining are, who actually controls some of the lumpy Sep 2013 #115

There are lots of unanswered questions... SomethingFishy Sep 2013 #121

Sorry you don't believe that Assad might be responsible for gas attacks. I prefer to believe the lumpy Sep 2013 #125

He may be, but he may not be... unless there is some classified evidence SomethingFishy Sep 2013 #131

Well where were you when Assad was torturing and killing? I am helpless to do much about killings lumpy Sep 2013 #136

Shame on the European puppet governments then. ocpagu Sep 2013 #58

Hell, the only proof they will accept would have to come from ??? lumpy Sep 2013 #90

Hmm...no, I don't have to prove anything. MineralMan Sep 2013 #12

I said "you" because in your question you asked "we"... ocpagu Sep 2013 #22

This message was self-deleted by its author GeorgeGist Sep 2013 #149

Especially since there are fairly credible allegations that rebels used chem weapons provided HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #26

Exactly. Fantastic Anarchist Sep 2013 #51

"some confidence, at a small level" BOG PERSON Sep 2013 #142

LMAO! Fantastic Anarchist Sep 2013 #143

"FAIRLY credible allegations" doesn't cut it more than critizing others for using similar replies lumpy Sep 2013 #122

Other countries have concluded that it was Assad's party, like Germany, France for instance. lumpy Sep 2013 #87

Based on tazkcmo Sep 2013 #112

OK prove that it was just info provided bythe US. We don't know everything do we ? lumpy Sep 2013 #119

Prove it wasn't. tazkcmo Sep 2013 #120

"Based on information provided by the US", your statement. A statement as though it be based lumpy Sep 2013 #126

That would be terrible in my opinion. ZombieHorde Sep 2013 #8

what if he doesn't. what if the rebels use sarin again? cali Sep 2013 #11

A question is not an answer. MineralMan Sep 2013 #13

I did more than ask a question, MM. but thanks for letting us know that only YOU cali Sep 2013 #37

I started the OP with a question. I can do that. MineralMan Sep 2013 #43

What if we lob a few dozen hundred missiles and the slaughter continues? Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #17

See, the thing is that I would like to analyze a number of MineralMan Sep 2013 #23

It seems to me there will be slaughter, regardless. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #44

What if it wasn't Assad? idwiyo Sep 2013 #19

OK, what if it wasn't? MineralMan Sep 2013 #24

Exactly the same thing I am saying now: absolutely no foreign military involvement in a civil war. idwiyo Sep 2013 #49

Ask yourself whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #20

Another question to answer my question? MineralMan Sep 2013 #28

Wtf... You admit you're in the group the question is directed at whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #42

I don't have an answer, and was hoping for a discussion to help MineralMan Sep 2013 #46

Ok, I'll take a stab at your (mostly pointless) hypothetical whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #50

Thanks. An answer, at last. MineralMan Sep 2013 #52

You're welcome! whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #54

How about we take our case to the UN???? reformist2 Sep 2013 #21

See- Many DU'ers are in denial and refuse to acknowledge the possibility. Even if you say FINE- KittyWampus Sep 2013 #25

Nothing beyond humanitarian aid. Their country, their war, their business. idwiyo Sep 2013 #94

I don't think Putin would like being sent to the Hague. lumpy Sep 2013 #130

I am sure he wouldn't. But the girl can dream... :) idwiyo Sep 2013 #137

The decision is not between bombing and doing nothing. polichick Sep 2013 #27

Well, right now, it seems to be the case. MineralMan Sep 2013 #32

How can the US be a credible leader on this when the US has used chemical weapons itself? PDJane Sep 2013 #33

That's an inconvenient question. We do because we can. The justifications are convenient. libdem4life Sep 2013 #176

Sure dropping a bomb on top of another violent act I don't believe will help. Cleita Sep 2013 #34

Your whole thread is based on the assumption that Assad ordered the gas attack. polly7 Sep 2013 #35

Could it just be possible that this erstwhile Skidmore Sep 2013 #101

Ohhhhh Good Grief...... lumpy Sep 2013 #134

Wedgie? nt. polly7 Sep 2013 #135

more concerned that we can't predict the consequences of OUR OWN actions bigtree Sep 2013 #38

interesting question, My guess is that Assad does it again and more of our allies CTyankee Sep 2013 #40

Thanks. That seems like a reasonable answer. MineralMan Sep 2013 #61

Take it to the UN -- Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2013 #41

Still none of our business.. sendero Sep 2013 #53

OK. That is an answer. Thank you. MineralMan Sep 2013 #55

Lot more nonsensical bickering bobGandolf Sep 2013 #56

Maybe this makes me a terrible person 1awake Sep 2013 #57

Thanks for your direct answer. MineralMan Sep 2013 #59

What if we throw a bunch of cruise missiles at Syria and 0rganism Sep 2013 #60

That's really a different question. Mine assumes no action on our part MineralMan Sep 2013 #63

It's what your initial question led me to think 0rganism Sep 2013 #76

Well, it's already started on a distinct down note, for sure. MineralMan Sep 2013 #78

the Middle East is where diplomacy goes to die 0rganism Sep 2013 #83

So it has seemed to me for as long as I can remember. MineralMan Sep 2013 #85

What if it were the same rebels who've been proven to polly7 Sep 2013 #62

Another question as an answer. MineralMan Sep 2013 #65

My apologies. nt. polly7 Sep 2013 #67

Also not responsive. MineralMan Sep 2013 #70

The UN and The Hague -- these are the avenues for action under Int'l Law. 99th_Monkey Sep 2013 #64

So, if there were another attack, you'd say MineralMan Sep 2013 #68

I'd say do that, AND the Hague AND real humanitarian relief to victims as possible, yes. 99th_Monkey Sep 2013 #71

Makes sense. MineralMan Sep 2013 #72

I think Westerners greatly underestimate Skidmore Sep 2013 #66

Yes. I've said that the West doesn't understand the ME MineralMan Sep 2013 #69

I would think those opposed to a strike would have to back track rapidly. Thinkingabout Sep 2013 #73

Perhaps. I'm not sure that would happen, though. MineralMan Sep 2013 #77

What if, instead... CincyDem Sep 2013 #74

........ polly7 Sep 2013 #128

Then perhaps the Arab League will act Warpy Sep 2013 #75

That, I think, would be an excellent outcome. MineralMan Sep 2013 #80

The Arab League can tell us how high to jump as Skidmore Sep 2013 #84

That would help. Perhaps China will sell us the technology Warpy Sep 2013 #88

A couple of thoughts-- Jackpine Radical Sep 2013 #81

All true. We often make mistakes when we MineralMan Sep 2013 #86

What if we wait and see what the UN inspectors find? Javaman Sep 2013 #89

What if we DO do something and he conducts another one anyway? JHB Sep 2013 #91

I think there is more of a likelihood of chemical attack... kentuck Sep 2013 #93

That's possible, too, of course. MineralMan Sep 2013 #98

What if it were rebels? Than what? idwiyo Sep 2013 #99

If they were "our " rebels...? kentuck Sep 2013 #114

Saudi Arabia, Government stockpiles, anyone who will sell them chemicals (see UK for example). idwiyo Sep 2013 #117

Sarin gas manufacture isn't the exclusive domain of governments Art_from_Ark Sep 2013 #173

What if he doubles down when we attack? What then? Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #95

Spot on. The Link Sep 2013 #96

There are many what ifs. I posed one. MineralMan Sep 2013 #105

Because they are all forms of the same question, man. A question to which there is no answer Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #111

I'm having a hard time rationalizing why chem weapons are BAD but Redford Sep 2013 #97

Yeah. All weapons are bad. MineralMan Sep 2013 #103

WW1? Why go back that far? Look at Saddam's use of poison gas on civilian and military Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #150

I went back to WWI because it was that war that MineralMan Sep 2013 #156

The UN could perhaps explain treestar Sep 2013 #139

What if we bomb, bomb, bomb Syria and then a few months later Assad madinmaryland Sep 2013 #100

Yes. That's another question, but it's not MineralMan Sep 2013 #108

I'm sorry I have to actually explain my post to you, but the point is that no matter what happens, madinmaryland Sep 2013 #116

Let me know when a large majority of the international community of nations wants to do something. L0oniX Sep 2013 #104

I won't have to let you know. It will be in the news. MineralMan Sep 2013 #109

It's a given....by whom???? That will provide the final nail in snappyturtle Sep 2013 #106

No intervention in Middle East civil wars. former9thward Sep 2013 #113

That is a great question. Rex Sep 2013 #123

If that were to happen, that would probably strengthen the case at the UN. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2013 #124

I believe the UN not the USA is tasked with policing the anti-chemical warfare treaties and laws. Vincardog Sep 2013 #129

If we don´t do anything about Syria - EHC ehcross Sep 2013 #132

You make the assumption that Assad did it to begin with, and that another will be on his order too. cleanhippie Sep 2013 #133

That would be sad. sibelian Sep 2013 #138

So many dodges of the question! treestar Sep 2013 #140

Some answers, though. I thanked those posters. MineralMan Sep 2013 #145

Who cares about those kids ?...None of our business. jessie04 Sep 2013 #146

Not bombing is not the same as "don't do anything" Precisely Sep 2013 #141

I have asked that same questions … 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2013 #147

So it seems. That is sad, I think. MineralMan Sep 2013 #157

So true ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2013 #172

Israel and SA can deal with it. GeorgeGist Sep 2013 #148

We have to do something and it has to be something with real teeth in it Cleita Sep 2013 #151

I think a faction of the Syrian military is operating on its own. Attacking Assad will just make leveymg Sep 2013 #152

agree w/ mineralman. If this chemical becomes commonplace, the next firework Sunlei Sep 2013 #154

the majority of the people in the usa don`t care now madrchsod Sep 2013 #155

Then we still do not attack. If he does it yet again, then we still don't attack. TheKentuckian Sep 2013 #158

Thanks for your response to the question. MineralMan Sep 2013 #159

Glad to participate. TheKentuckian Sep 2013 #174

THIS EXACTLY! backscatter712 Sep 2013 #171

What if... LWolf Sep 2013 #160

I completely agree that peaceful solutions are the ultimate answer. MineralMan Sep 2013 #161

I'm thinking that LWolf Sep 2013 #162

I don't disagree with you. MineralMan Sep 2013 #164

The US should not intervene, period. David__77 Sep 2013 #163

That is an excellent suggestion. It sometimes works. MineralMan Sep 2013 #165

Otherwise, it the 80s Afghanistan thing, redux. David__77 Sep 2013 #166

Yup. The Middle East has been a place for surrogate conflict MineralMan Sep 2013 #167

China just wants out of the spotlight. David__77 Sep 2013 #169

What if we do something about Syria, and the consequence is catastrophe for the whole world? Coyotl Sep 2013 #168

That's really a different discussion, I think. MineralMan Sep 2013 #170

We should do what we should have done from the beginning. Tell the world this is Russia's guy and stevenleser Sep 2013 #175

We aren't the only country abelenkpe Sep 2013 #177