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
Editorials & Other Articles
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: Of course people opposed to military strikes are horrified by the use of chemical weapons [View all]MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)71. You're really using video game technology as your basis... SRSLY???
Nothing but wishful thinking, I stand by my statement. And ask again, are you really that thirsty for Syrian blood?
From your linked propaganda article:
"The PAW penetrator rods, which range from several inches to more than one-foot, can disable an enemy fuel tank, antenna or helicopter without necessarily damaging people."
unless one of these penetrator rods happen to HIT the person....
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
97 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
Of course people opposed to military strikes are horrified by the use of chemical weapons [View all]
cali
Sep 2013
OP
It's easy to take pot shots at others but hard to state your own position. nm
rhett o rick
Sep 2013
#20
No, no, haven't you heard? Those of us who oppose war with Syria are OK with chemical weapons ....
Scuba
Sep 2013
#2
Or maybe the other way.. people who are for some action against Assad are warmongers...
DontTreadOnMe
Sep 2013
#26
Advocating military action before exhausting all other avenues is indeed "warmongering".
Scuba
Sep 2013
#27
There's a pretty good body of literature that show US military intervention makes things worse ....
Scuba
Sep 2013
#79
Obama was not previously bothered by chemical weapons use, he never mentioned Reagan's
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2013
#3
Let's not forget that he has been a strong proponent of non-proliferation all along.
VanillaRhapsody
Sep 2013
#28
dude, your blind hatred of obama and pushing your "he luvs reagan!1!" lie are making you look absurd
dionysus
Sep 2013
#76
"If there was no collateral damage" - wouldn't it be simpler to just say I won't support strikes
el_bryanto
Sep 2013
#5
The fact that a US strike on Syria is illegal doesn't seem to change your favoring it
MNBrewer
Sep 2013
#34
Perhaps because it is the one thing that 98% of the world agreed to disarm itself of?
VanillaRhapsody
Sep 2013
#30
Those same nations also agreed to mechanisms by which to deal with the use of chemical weapons
MNBrewer
Sep 2013
#37
and if Obama succeeds in getting Syria to turn over its chemical weapons to international
VanillaRhapsody
Sep 2013
#32
"Your perspective on everything begins and ends with your absolute fealty to President Obama.
VanillaRhapsody
Sep 2013
#84
I wouldn't supportmilitary action under any circumstance than a direct threat to the US....
marble falls
Sep 2013
#14
We also live in the real world where the Syrian Government will continue to kill people...
brooklynite
Sep 2013
#18
right....you have seen technology that video games have used for 10 yrs...how has that technology
VanillaRhapsody
Sep 2013
#62
lol. you chide me for using TPM and the DB and go straight to wiki: Hilarious, honey.
cali
Sep 2013
#64
You have provided some nice glossy MIC materials produced for their propaganda effects
MNBrewer
Sep 2013
#74
I'm far more horrified by Depleted Uranium than I am of anything Syria has to offer
Snake Plissken
Sep 2013
#22
I will stop when Assad relinquishes his chemical weapons like the rest of the world has..
VanillaRhapsody
Sep 2013
#52