too bad we cant talk about Israeli nukes, our own torture issues or that we have the highest

[boomer55]

incarceration rate in the world like Kerry is talking against Syria today.



We are a very hypocritical nation and I will not support this action of needing to attack yet another country that has not attacked us.

[HERVEPA]

1. And Israeli nukes are relevant to this discussion how?

[The Stranger]

3. Ever look at a map?

I mean, is this a serious question?

[HERVEPA]

10. Yes, thank you, I have looked at a map.

And it is a serious question. How is this relevant to whether the US intervenes in Syria?

[The Stranger]

22. Go look at the map again.

Look for Syria.

Then look for Syria's neighbors.

[HERVEPA]

31. How about cutting out the condescending crap.

Just state your point, if you have one.

[boomer55]

4. Nukes are worse than biological weapons and we're very adamant about keeping them and

biological weapons out of the middle east.

we turn a blind eye to them.

Nothing has changed in the 10 years since this was written...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3340639.stm

[HERVEPA]

9. Israel has not used nuclear weapons.

Syria has used (possibly) chemical weapons. That is the difference. We would not be talking about being involved if they hadn't been used. (I'm not in favor of involvement, by the way).

[Deny and Shred]

18. Only one country has ever used atomic or nuclear weapons

Isreal denies that they possess them. I believe the poster was pointing out US hypocracy.

Attacking Syria was talked about a lot by US officials in 2005-6.

UN inspectors leave by tomorrow, Congress is not in session, nor being recalled. I put an attack late Sunday or Monday. Holidays are good times for 'bad' news.

[MythosMaster]

34. He was pointing out our hypocrisy

in our foreign policy in the region.

Incredible double standards.

Policy that the neo-con agenda that has nothing to do with sound reasonable policy for the citizens of those nations but to push the agenda of the multinational energy corporations.

To transform the region that is friendly to the global oligarchs, for the benefit of few at the expense of the many.

[BainsBane]

2. Never, under no circumstances?

You wouldn't have intervened to stop Rwanda or the Holocaust?

[boomer55]

5. not alone as an independent country. part of a UN mandate and part of the international community

Yes.

not alone

[BainsBane]

6. That's my view on Syria

but I would have supported intervention to stop those two genocides regardless, but of course hindsight is 20/20.

[HERVEPA]

8. Says a lot about you. None of it good.

[boomer55]

13. awww I appreciate your judgement and hold it dear to my heart. :)

[leftynyc]

26. Wait a minute

are you seriously saying that if you knew the nazis were throwing people into ovens - millions of people - you would wait for the approval of some other body to want to act?

[Aerows]

19. I'm sorry,

did I miss where we got involved unilaterally in Rwanda? If so, please enlighten me.

[BainsBane]

20. Where did I say we did?

What you missed is my post.

[Aerows]

21. Just point out for those that missed it

that we didn't. I was hoping that if we did I didn't somehow miss it somewhere along the line.

[BainsBane]

23. I didn't realize I was expected to give remedial lessons in US history

I expect to be paid for that.

[Aerows]

24. LOL

Would you like to be paid in bullshit or praise for your brilliance?

[Supersedeas]

7. Incarceration rate?

You might have noticed that this country has a significant organized crime, violent crime, sexual offender populace, and gang presence and violence connected with turf wars--not to mention white collar crime and tax evaders. How US incarcerations relate to the Secretary of State's speech about Syria puzzles me?

[boomer55]

12. its only 1 example of the serious problems in our own country that we ignore. Maybe we should

take some of those trillions spent on attacking other countries that have never attacked us and spend it on our own citizens needs?

[Supersedeas]

16. i completely agree with you there

[Live and Learn]

17. Well it is certainly not because we aren't incarcerating

enough people or don't have more than enough laws. I doubt it is because Americans are inherently prone to criminal activities.

Perhaps it is time to look at other options to address our problems.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. It is indeed appalling that it was impossible for you to post this... wait, hang on!

You just disproved your own claim.

What I suspect you mean is not "we can't talk about" but "other people choose to talk about things other than".

Which is a whole different kettle of fish.

[boomer55]

14. by "we" I meant our nations leaders. Please point out where they have spoken about the nukes.

[wild bird]

29. Why would the Administration speak about Israel's nukes?

It has nothing to do with Syria.
And, Israeli nukes aren't in danger of falling into unfriendly hands.

[yoloisalie]

15. But But

Israel is not signatory to the Nuclear NPT, the same way Syria is not with the Ban on chemical weapon use. But remember, its one standard for our friends and another for our enemies. Btw I do not believe the Syria govt used chemical weapons on its people and I am sure the reason they did not sign it is because they know they will never get a fair treatment from the west.

And lookie, we already blamed them for a chemical attack before the dust had settles, sent in 5 warships while investigators are still on the ground. I cannot blame them for the actions they've taken so far

[leftynyc]

27. Do you think it was the rebels?

Which ones?

[DeSwiss]

25. K&R

[wild bird]

28. What do Israeli nukes have to do with the civil war in Syria?

I agree that we shouldn't get involved in Syria, but Israeli nukes has nothing to do with Syria, so why the distraction?

[99th_Monkey]

30. Yes. It's high time for USA to get it's own house in order

before ordering other nations around, as to their "obscene" atrocities.

[gopiscrap]

32. I am with you all the way!

[blkmusclmachine]

33. MUST. NOT. LOOK. BACK.

[RainDog]

35. truth