Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (790927)	6/20/2014 1:39:45 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1578550

How do you explain the chemical arsenal now in Syria? Stupid question. Chemical weapons are not that difficult to make. They probably made them. If not, then buying them from the Russians would have been a choice. No conspiracy is needed. You do know that Iraq and Syria were not on the best of terms? There was plenty of wondering going on. Only on wingnut sites. Which tend to wonder about a number of things with no basis in reality.

To: one_less who wrote (790927)	6/23/2014 3:36:44 AM
From: Bilow	2 Recommendations Recommended By bentway combjelly Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578550

Hi one_less; Re: "How do you explain the chemical arsenal now in Syria? "; Obviously you know nothing at all about military weapons, LOL. Any country on the planet can purchase chemical weapons. There is no international agreement making them illegal to own. Recently, a lot of states have decided to get rid of them voluntarily. Maybe you could have done a little "research" and typed syria+chemical+weapons and got some super-secret information (from wikipedia): Syria's chemical weapons program began in the 1970s with weapons and training from Egypt and the Soviet Union, with production of chemical weapons in Syria beginning in the mid-1980s. en.wikipedia.org Read about chemical weapons "proliferation" at the wikipedia page: Many nations continue to research and/or stockpile chemical weapon agents despite numerous efforts to reduce or eliminate them. Most states have joined the Chemical Weapons Convention, which requires the destruction of all chemical weapons by 2012. Twelve nations have declared chemical weapons production facilities and six nations have declared stockpiles of chemical weapons. All of the declared production facilities have been destroyed or converted to civilian use after the treaty went into force. According to the United States government, at least 17 nations currently have active chemical weapons programs. en.wikipedia.org -- Carl P.S. This concept that Syria is different because they have "WMDs" is typical modern propaganda. The basic idea is to make the public sufficiently afraid that they support the (stupid) use of military force. If people weren't so easy to manipulate the politicians would actually have to make sense. What they're doing here is manipulating the public opinion to support the elimination of another secular dictator (Assad). Why would you fall for this when you have the example of Iraq to show you where it is leading? Yes these are awful places with awful governments. That doesn't mean that our weapons are going to make them better. In fact, these regions became stable only because of these awful governments. When you kick them over you get crap like what happened in Iran. We could deal with the secular dictator there (the Shah) but he wasn't perfect enough for Jimmy Carter so we gave him no support. The utter failure of this short-sighted foreign policy has since been repeated in Iraq, Syria and Libya. When are they going to get the last stable regime in the middle east turned into a hornet's nest? What's it going to be like to have Saudi Arabia in flames? They don't allow women to drive there so it would be better if we had Al Qaeda in power, LOL. At least the locals are spending most of their blood fighting each other.