04-14-2017, 11:47 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-14-2017, 11:54 AM by Eric the Green.)
(04-14-2017, 11:18 AM)Mikebert Wrote:(04-14-2017, 10:31 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: If Syria did not have chemical weapons, and didn't use them, why was Russia able to force Assad to get rid of his chemical weapons, which they supposedly did and which everyone saw him move out of Syria? Did these links in your post prove that rebels had chemical weapons, and used them on their own people?
One thing the Parry story seemed to say was that the evidence for the chemical attack was not revealed, so it was investigated (poorly) by the NY Times. A lot of evidence seems to be withheld about this month's attack as well, and of course the Iraq evidence for WMD was phony. The government feels the need to keep secret what it knows, and I don't understand why. But I did not see that they had satellite evidence in the 2013 case, which they at least claimed they had in this current case.
The Parry report compared the deception over WMD in Iraq that was used to get us into war in 2003, with the faulty analysis of rocket paths in 2013 that almost got us into war in Syria. But this would not have gotten us into war with Syria; what Obama was considering and asked congress for in 2013 was just a missile strike like Trump has just carried out, and like Clinton did on Iraq.
So you didn't look at them then.
I hadn't read the Hersh article. His claims are interesting, but disputed in a reply below the article.
Wa-Post article on Obama's and Trump's strike plans.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh...e881cfca5e