Saddam said that he didn't have any WMD's, but it did absolutely no
good. You see, when one dictator tells the truth, it is canceled by the
opposition leader's lie.The American Prsident said that Saddam
had WMD's. He didn't. Congress voted for it, so Iraq was invaded.The American President KNEW that Kim il Jong had nuclear weapons. No
invasion.From the say this is going, I'd say that if Congrees
(which still contains some of the same members who voted to go into Iraq,) votes
to attac Syria is attacked, it would automatically be self-evident that that
Assad is telling the truth and that the American president and Congress know it.
A comment from another:Let me briefly state a reason why Obama would
like to intervene in Syria. At this present time, the Syrian government under
President Bashir al-Assad has been successful at preventing the overthrow of his
government by the Muslim Brotherhood (aka "Syrian rebels"). The Muslim
Brotherhood, funded in part by Saudi Arabia, is the same group who was in power
in Egypt; the U.S. also supported Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood while they
were in power.Remember the F-16 fighter jets, and two hundred new
tanks? Given that the Muslim Brotherhood cannot overthrow the
militarily superior Syrian government, it needs outside intervention to
accomplish this. This cannot be achieved with Russia, or Iran, who are allies of
Assad. Rather, it must come from other countries. That is where the U.S. comes
into play. The Muslim Brotherhood, not only had the ability, but also the motive
to have caused a chemical attack on the Syrian people. Its hope was to get
countries to blame Assad for the attack and cause nations to intervene and
depose Assad from power. This would cause a vacuum in which the Muslim
Brotherhood could seize power in Syria.
Remember the video (Benghazi), and the Weapons of Mass Destruction (Iraq)?
Remember how Hillary was under gunfire in Bosnia, or how Mitt Romney hasn't
paid federal income taxes for ten years? We were told that taxes will not
increase a single dime. Etc!Assad may be telling the truth.
The United States of America along with the international community worked
together to form the Chemical Weapon Convention that President Clinton signed
for the United States of America even though most of that work was done under
President Bush one's administration.Even Libya joined after
Baghdad's entry into war with the United States of America partly due to
it's chemical weapons use against it's own people. Ghadafi lost his
life much later but chemical weapons aren't very selective on who they
kill. Air movement is unpredictable in most cases and civilians and military
are victims even though the military may have some but not total protection.
Even the gear to protect in a cool or cold climate can generate an excessive
heat and sweating, if appropriately dressed. A cruel way to die for
the unsuspecting and even for those who attempt to care for them in those
moments especially when children are involved.The line was drawn!
We suspected Iraqi chemical weapons went to Syria in 2002-2003. We
buried our head in the sand over that issue with Russia's persuasion to do
so. Our President said he is more flexible with Russia this term.
What's sad,-is I can't trust the press for accurate reporting. They
have shaped public opionion with faulty information in the past.I
don't know if chemicals have been used, and we don't know what our
country's involvement has been.
I guess a real dictator can claim just about anything IF he can keep from
laughing. Assad evidently wants the world to think that his opponents used
chemical weapons on THEMSELVES in an effort to gain sympathy. It's working,
but that's because seeing Assad as he is has become easier.
And leaders always tell the truth? Sadaam even told the truth? Hitler and
Stalin always told the truth? Even some of our President's? That is why
we are blessed to have a little more protection in our system of three bodies of
government at the various levels along with a people that sometimes demand
integrity and honor.