Ferguson police have already stated that officer Wilson was not aware that Brown had been a participant in the robbery. As such it won't directly help Wilson if charges are filed. However, the video does help frame why Brown may have initiated a struggle if he feared he was being picked up on robbery charges.
Witnesses are consistent in their claims that Officer Wilson had grabbed Brown after shouting profanities at him, and that Brown was trying to push the officer away. it was the officer who initiated the confrontation. He first drove the past the two young men, then braked and sped in reverse, almost hitting them. No. it is not established that there was a struggle IN the car.
Witnesses are dodgy at best. The story as it has been reported so far doesn't make much sense, especially the part about the door bouncing off the two and the officer trying to pull Brown into the car through the window. The stories of Johnson, Tiffany Mitchell, and Piaget Crenshaw differ on several key points and will require investigators to comb over and verify for consistency.
I don't know any of these people, I do not have a vested interest in the outcome of this investigation, but I do get tired of people proclaiming a preponderance or lack of evidence. We don't have any evidence one way or another and casting judgement on Brown or Wilson is pointless speculation.
Were I to make a reccomendation I would ask that the
It hasn't been confirmed to be Michael Brown in the video.
Brown's family, Johnson, and Johnson's lawyer have stated that it was Brown and Johnson in the video.
Strong arm robbery is too verbally similar to armed robbery.
How would you describe it then? Robbery is distinguished by theft as robbery requires the perpetrator to threaten or intimidate the owner or supervisor of the property being stolen. Strong-armed robbery is distinct from armed robbery and would likely have carried a lesser charge.
There are many types of robbery, like robbery by sudden snatching, aggravated robbery, and robbery by false pretenses. Depending on the country or state these can all carry different levels of fines, jail time, or punishment.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
U.S. pharmaceuticals companies ALREADY experiment on poor people in Africa. See norvapine, which was tested on HIV sufferers in Africa. In many cases it cut people's life expectancies in half, including little children.
Thank's for making my case for me brother. Lovely example of why we shouldn't distribute the drug since fine people like yourself would just use it to justify their criticism of whatever measures the US takes. If they ended up dying you folks would be the first to call for the pharma CEO to go to the ICC for war crimes or some such nonsense.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Cursed if you do, cursed if you don't.
If we have an experimental treatment and don't use it we're accused of neglecting the poor people of Africa.
If we give out an experimental treatment and it ends up killing, maiming, or crippling those we give it to due to unforseen side effects we're accused of experimenting on the poor people of Africa.
I'm glad it appears to be working on the two aid workers that it was administered on but until clinical tests determine that it's safe the treatment should remain in the lab.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Just imagine - today failed state deep in crisis and in civil war has a lot of nukes And Ukraine refused to give away Soviet nukes located at its territory
Frankly they probably should have kept hold of the nukes since Russia apparently had no interest in honoring the agreement. But that would imply that the Russian Federation government is made up of two faced liars looking to prey on a weaker neighboring country and we know that's not the case.
Most of them are from Donbass
So the recruiting stations in Moscow are just there to sell cookies right?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Independent Ukraine - before Russian Empire was a small state - a little bit bigger as modern Hungary
Gee golly, then the Russians probably shouldn't have signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances to preserve it's current (including Crimea) borders eh? Sounds a lot like the Russians only care about ethnic Russian populations and historical boarders when former satellite countries start stepping out with other trade organizations.
on the other - Russian militias formed from LOCAL people of Donbass
I had no idea that Russia, Chechnya, and half of the southern oblasts were part of the Donbass! Good to have native born sons like Vladimir Antyufeyev leading his countrymen! Oh wait, he's from Novosibirsk a few thousand miles away...and a Russian OMON officer....huh. Almost like the leadership is primarily made up of imported Russian agents.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Huh, apparently being under siege is lousy. Who knew?
While the local government that existed before the current conflict began is attempting to provide basic services, real authority lies with the gunmen leading the separatist government that dubs itself the Luhansk People’s Republic
I don't know what the people expected. These guys were sent in to secure Eastern Ukraine and prep it for annexation, they were never intended to operate independently. Now that Ukrainian government forces are closing in and support from Moscow is floundering they can't do much but cause a scene and pray their Ruskie superiors send in some 'peacekeepers'.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
If you've committed a crime take your lumps, do your time, and if you think you're really that worthless of a human being try living for the benefit of others. Work yourself to death and give everything you have to those who aren't so spiritually destitute. With very few exceptions suicide is the way of the coward, to afraid to face the long and painful road of recovery.
12 ( +15 / -3 )
At this point are we really supposed to be surprised when Russian security forces beat protesters? The two most interesting things about this story were the luchador ski masks, which I found wholeheartedly entertaining, and the fact that somewhere in the developed(ish) world people arm their police with horsewhips. That's antiquated even by Russian standards.
Surprise : did you hear 'bout Cold War ?
I remember that movie. I don't think it ended well for the Soviets.
Today NATO moves east ... US regardless bankruptcy spend a lot on antimissle system near Russian borders
It's kind of like poking a starving animal to see if it has any life left in it. Imagine our surprise when it got up started oppressing people again, I guess some habits are hard to break. If only they would use their powers for something other than daydreaming about the happy times of the Soviet Union.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
From what I saw, without the US there to act as boogeyman the Japanese and Chinese end up spending a lot of money to throw rhetoric at each other before shuffling back into their corners for the next bout of the passive aggressive royal.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I am quite familiar with firearms, so no need to preach me about ballistics.
You're the one advocating opening fire in an urban environment on a moving target with unknown intent.
Warning shots in air or following shooting on tires in certaing cases are very helpful to stop a runaway car . For instance, to prevent a possible collision with other vehicle on motorway or pedestrians on walkways. In other words, to prevent utterly negative consequences for innocent people.
That runs counter to all police and security training. I'm sure it looks great on the set of your movie though.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Traffic policemen in my country often succesfully shoot tires of runaway cars during car chase or block them by police vehicles to prevent a dangerous, erratic driving. Ordinary traffic police, not "high-skilled pros" from units of special forces.
Then they're being dangerously irresponsible with the use of a deadly weapon. Shooting out tires in anything other than a controlled environment can be disastrous as the car can careen, flip, and endanger the lives of everybody in the immediate vicinity. And if the situation was one which could be controlled (like clearing a highway ahead of a dangerous driver) they would have been better off using spike strips which are infinitely more effective at taking out tires and pose no threat of ricochet.
You don't seem to understand that missed shots don't just evaporate into the ether, they keep going until they hit something whether it be a wall, a mailbox, or a person and even then they can ricochet off in an unintended direction. Even if you hit the tires the bullet could still be at play and go hundreds of yards with the left over energy. Firing for a result other than serious injury or death is a great way to unintentionally inflict serious injury or death on an innocent and is grossly irresponsible.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
I remember one incident specifically around 2000 of a guy who waved a gun and fired several shots at tourists and police that was shot in the knee by a Secret Service agent. Another possibly psychotic man that tried to scale the fence several years earlier was shot in the arm. You can neutralize these "threats" (not likely to be suicide bombers) in one of two ways: the fast disappearing less than lethal way which the SS has used for 40+ years, especially if you care about not hitting babies or passersby, and the trigger-happy gun-crazy way.
Officers in every level of the military and law enforcement are trained to aim for the center of mass. I've been shooting for years and I'd have trouble making a shot on a moving arm or leg. Firing a gun in real life isn't like firing one in a video game, it's not pinpoint accurate especially in the case of handguns which were used by the officers in this case. If you wound a dangerous or deranged individual it gives them threat time to fire back, putting yourself, other law enforcement officers, and innocent bystanders at risk. in any case it is illegal and foolish to shoot to wound. When you fire your weapon you do so to kill.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
According to CNN
Thursday's drama began around 2 p.m., when the woman steered a black Infiniti near the White House, a U.S. Secret Service source said. She drove up to a barrier at the 15th and E street checkpoint and was approached by Secret Service officers. She hurriedly made an erratic three-point turn, struck the barrier and backed into an officer before driving away, the source told CNN.
Seems to be the same information from most sources. With that information at hand I really don't see how the Secret Service could have reacted differently to somebody that runs from police, hits an officer, and led DC officers on a chase. She represented a clear and present danger in a very security tight location and law enforcement responded.
Yes, because we all know that shooting the driver of a moving vehicle makes the vehicle stop immediately and in total safety.
It's DC, for all they knew the driver was armed or trying to detonate something close to a major federal building. Of all the places you should not run from a checkpoint this is probably in the top 10.
And in her position, would you have meekly stopped when you were suddenly surrounded and chased by armed men?
At every point during this unfortunate turn of events I would have reacted entirely differently. I wouldn't have run from a checkpoint, I wouldn't have hit an officer, I wouldn't have fled the scene, and I wouldn't have engaged in a police pursuit. At any given point the best possible thing to do would have been to stop the car and lay on the ground with your hands in an open and neutral position on the ground or on your head.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Well apparently somebody doesn't like QI. I find him to be a wholly entertaining and interesting media personality. If I can find him as such being the religious, black-hearted capitalist that I am, Milonov and Russian politicians in general need to develop a sense of humor.
The couple can adopt, or support nieces and nephews etc, thus ensuring the children have a good future.
Right now they're scrambling to find any way to bring up their abysmal replacement rate. It's not about children having good futures, its about having children at all. Between the mass emigration, the overseas adoption of Russian children, poor birth rates, and even poorer life expectancy President Putin's country is in a real bind. The only western nations with a positive replacement rate, to my knowledge, are the US, France, and Ireland.
I doubt forcing homosexuals to have heterosexual intercourse would impact the situation but the Russian government doesn't really have that many ideas so it's running with what its got; no gays, less alcoholism, more babies. Great campaign slogan. PUTIN 20... FOREVER!
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Mostly saber rattling. "You better do what I say or so help me!" In order to make it look like the US didn't bow out. The President has already proven his point and gotten the Syrians scared enough to hand over the weapons, the continued rhetoric is to impress the American population who will jump at any and all signs of weakness on the part of the CinC.
Opponents at home are far scarier than those abroad where US politics are concerned.
Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani said the Syria crisis showed the need to reform the Security Council, where Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States hold veto power.
“Taking a decision should not be monopolized for a long period by one or two states,” he said.
The UNSC reflects that not all nations are equal in terms of global politics. If you take out that nugget of truth and make all nations equal in terms of sway, large nations have no incentive to participate and can, instead, fall back on their more beneficial agreements. The US has NAFTA, NATO, and it's various deals with nations of South East Asia. Russia has it's own organizations where it gets to play a leading role. Take away the preferential treatment of the US, Russia, or their allies and they can bow out, taking the vast majority of the UN's clout and funding with them.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
I will defend your right to the DEATH to bear flintlock muskets and pistols and to keep as many flintlock weapons and corresponding ammunition as your house can hold.
Because having people running around buying gunpowder by the barrel is such a grand idea. Not only do we go from having stable ammunition to unstable powder but we also have additional transport and storage hazard. Even in small quantities fine granulation black powder can go up without much effort. Modern shells and bullets are much safer to store, transport, and sell.
The expansion of the black powder market would also increase the prevalence of black powder storage, making it far easier to accumulate large quantities of the stuff without raising any red flags. I fire off about 600 rounds a week, for me to do that with black powder I'd be buying over a kilo of the stuff per month. Stands to reason a person could accumulate 10-20 kilo's in a short amount of time. Right now that would raise a lot of eyebrows but if it became common practice it would likely go undetected.
Then instead of mass shootings we get nail bombs. We'd also have more explosions in houses, accidental discharges would cause more fatalities, and considerably more property damage.
-5 ( +0 / -5 )
My nephew was born a few rooms down from a kid named Bill (not William) Iggy Grant so that his initials would spell BIG. Kid's going to catch some flack in school but I guess he can change it when he's an adult if he feels the need. Foolish series of events leading to a foolish story.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
So what's your proposal?
How about they get the current background check system working first before implementing a whole new system. I'm a licensed manufacturer and it still jacks up my check every other time because I have an absurdly common name.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
I think most people recognize this as a stalling tactic. Russia gets to look like it tried, Obama gets a couple more weeks to sell his bid to congress, all the important parties come out of this winners. What side we're striking or supporting in Syria is hardly of consequence at this point.
So what do you expect from another government?
The person with the cruise missiles gets to determine the expectations of a given situation. If the Assad government was really interested in the deal they could have all their storage and manufacturing sites compiled and sent to the UNSC in less than a week. Instead they're probably going to hide the majority of their stockpile and send oven a few token palates of partially expired chemical weapons and swear that it's all they had while trying to shore up their defenses against future missile strikes.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
At least one Afghan guard was killed in the attack and 18 other people wounded, but U.S. officials said there were no U.S. casualties with all consulate staff safe and accounted for.
Not that surprising. Modern US embassies and consulates are built like fortresses.
Unfortunately, I think the minute the US pulls out, the Taliban will be right back in charge.
People tend to forget the thousands of 'non-combat' troops that can still run missions and shoot back and do basically everything a combat troop can, that will still be there until the Afghan government asks them to leave. Not to mention the air strike capabilities and drones. Considering the Afghan government likes living a lot more than they dislike the US, I'd say those troops are going to be there for a while.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Known like Iraq's ones ?
The US was after nuclear materials in that conflict. While they did find about 500 chemical munitions in 06 and several bunkers worth of unfilled munitions in 09 (given short shelf life they would likely be filled immediately following production). The problem was that the US specifically went after nuclear material, their intent was not the chemical weapons possessed by Iraq.
If they knew, they wouldn't need strikes, they could give the addresses and within 4 to 12 hours the UN workers would be there with trucks and they'd make the staff load their stock. Assad would not be in a position to refuse that.
Because the UN has a sterling track record of that. They'd ferry them from false site to false site using them as a shield against US action for as long as the charade would hold up to the general assembly while gas attacks continue.
That will cause money loss to owners of the businesses, possible deaths of workers or other civilians living or passing nearby, and local contamination to some extent. Impact on weapon production is really a wish. And no progress on the conflict matter.
Nation building and property damage is no longer the business of the US military, we learned our lesson in Iraq. Now we conduct the strikes on the targets we want removed and we leave. Frankly I'd rather just see the whole thing sorted out with a strike on the Assad compound but that would be a direct breech of conventions signed by the US. The impending nature of a US strike is already known, anybody that works in a site used for chemical weapon's production is going their at their own risk at this point.
And in this case, supposing they bomb a chem warfare facility, is that not just as bad as using these products ? Wouldn't the smokes drift away ? Wouldn't the liquid go into soil and water ?
Most chemical agents are produced for binary combination, but the immediate area would be highly contaminated. But being as the US is making no secret of it's desire to strike such facilities, anybody interested in preserving their lives would be putting some distance between themselves and the chemical sites. Anybody that remains has had ample time to leave.
I have relative that worked in companies making what you call "conventional" armaments (and other objects) and he is extremely pessimistic about the pollution of current time ammunitions.
All heavy industry comes with pollution. Side effect contaminants should be controlled and brought down but you're drawing a false comparison. It's like the environmentalists that compare a coal plant to a chemical weapon, yes a plant produces chemicals, they aren't weaponized. I wouldn't breath them but to say they're even remotely similar to a chemical weapon is absurd.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
The big time for chemical warfare was 1914~18 as 4% of the deaths of the big war were due to gassing.
And those events, along with the Armenian genocide, are what laid the groundwork for modern international criminal courts and coined the phrase 'crime against humanity' in 1915.
The countryside around my hometown have been battlefields in the 3 big wars and some people are still getting killed by explosive they happen to hit while digging for agriculture, road making or building purpose.
And your point is what? A malfunctioning bomb is hardly the same as an intentional environmental containment. Conventional bombs don't drift into populated areas with the wind or leave lasting contaminants in the soil and in habitable areas.
There are even people that talk about "Ground Zero illnesses", and that means all the symptoms you list. and there too, people that went to rescue victims have died and/or been durably affected with ruined health.
I honestly have no idea where your going with this, or even if you do for that matter.
A tool that is better than the chems ? You're sure of that ? Then how an air strike would achieve the announced goal is very mysterious.
In short? Yes. Having chemical weapons proliferate in the region could be disastrous to US security and the security of any nation in that region. Also, allowing a government to use chemical weapons on its own citizens sets a dangerous precedent for the future if it is allowed to go unpunished.
To hope a result they should be occupying fully Syria and browsing the whole country for chemical arms. And that's in the hypothesis the weapons originate from there and not from neighbouring countries.
I don't think you actually read the article. I know full blown anti-US conspiracies are kind of a hobby but bear with me here. At no point has anybody in the US in any position of power even hinted at the possibility of putting US troops in Syria. Even a no-fly zone is only talked about in passing. The only thing that has been suggested so far is a strike on known Syrian chemical weapons manufacturing and storage sites.
As Sarin gas is the likely culprit in these attacks the idea of a foreign supplier is kind of unlikely considering it's short shelf life. Unless it is stored in a binary cell which is very large and very expensive to maintain, not something that you can transport on an old truck across the Syrian back-country. They're meant to be loaded into aircraft or artillery shells, not something that the rebel's have in abundance.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Conventional weapons ? You live in 1850 or what ? That's baby-nukes in telecommanded missiles the US wants to strike Syrians with. What is conventional in that ? There is no more or less diabolical.
I believe you mean 1950's.
A conventional weapon is one that only inflicts immediate or primary damage to those in the immediate kill area of the weapon. A conventional high explosive or even a shrapnel weapon has a finite zone in which it can do damage and once the weapon is discharged it does not continue to do damage over time, whats done is done. Whether it's a dumb bomb or a guided missile it's not going to keep exploding after the initial detonation, it's job is done and the book is closed. NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) weapons do primary, secondary, and chronic damage in addition to contaminating the area for days, weeks, or even years in some instances.
War is war. War is the evil.
Considering it's one of the only things that the human race as a whole is good at I wouldn't go around knocking it. War and the ability to wage war is an important tool for any nation. In this instance the US would be using such a tool to prevent the use and proliferation of chemical arms, a cause that I personally find justifiable but is up to debate.
And you are getting into delusion because you watch only censored media.
Please enlighten me as to what media isn't somehow censored or bias in some way. I've got my reuters, CNN, BBC, Fox, Al Jazeera, Washington Post, World News, Consortium, Detroit Free press, NYT, and of course our good old JT on my computer's tracker so I think I've got a pretty good cross section going.
We've had sarin in the subway Tokyo. And ? You have a wish list, you want to be in a plane or tower like 9.11 rather that in a sarin attack ? Isn't that childish ?
Are you honestly asking somebody to pick how they'd rather die? An instant death or one that involves vomiting, voiding of bowels and bladder, uncontrollable muscle spasms, a blinding headache, blindness, and eventual death by violent convulsions and asphyxia. And here's the kicker, for a short period of time Sarin gas allows for secondary contamination which may kill first responders or anybody that may have tried to touch or move your body in an effort to help you. You'd compare the two deaths and call me childish for not wanting anybody to experience that.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Firstly, I brought up the question of inaction vs. action, an ice-age old disagreement between us both. Nothing to do with a UN mandate incidentmy. Also, I'm not sure it's fair to use the UN's impotence in this particular argument.
While I agree that the disagreement is an old one I think there has been a considerable shift in the tone and substance of the debate at it's core. I'm mostly looking at the actions of smaller nations that lack a stake in the game.
The expectation is that if the US feels that it should act the argument has ceased, action is coming and it is coming soon and will arrive with the force of some level of NATO backing as well as a level of support from member nations. Now the support has evaporated. The idea that Iraq broke domestic and international resolve for such activity flies in the face of what we've seen in Libya. If anything the intervention in Syria will be on an even smaller scale but is being met with fierce resistance to what should be a universally appealing middle ground of removing chemical weapons from the game board.
If we're bringing the the UN to the debate, than I must repeat that it needs to reform or become irrelevant. The fact that only five countries out of the hundred-odd countries on the map have a veto in this day and age speaks volumes about their credibility and fairness. All serious members should have an equal vote for a "united" nation principle to work fairly.
Which goes back to the age old question of whether all nations bring equal weight to the table. China and the US would have nothing to gain from a more democratic setup of nations and nations like Russia, Iran, and Cuba gain a larger platform from which to rabble rouse at. I also don't see the US or UK participating in anything that reduces their perceived sovereignty.
Heh, even if US intelligence aren't sure, we can always rely on the Israeli's for guidance....
And people wonder why I like having them around.
Ignoring the precedent set by the use of chemical weapons by either side is a step too far IMO.
And that's the real driver behind the US's inevitable intervention. Given our involvement in the region the US cannot, under any circumstances, allow chemical weapons to become the norm. Normalization leads to proliferation and that's something no rational nation should abide.
People don't seem to grasp how, frankly, diabolical NBC's are when compared to conventional weapons. They are indiscriminate, uncontrollable, they hit secondary targets, they kill first responders, and they permeate the area for extended lengths of time. NBC's can also be divided and deployed in small batches that can generate casualties that no conventional weapon of comparable size could do. Imagine if the bomb in Boston had been sarin, we're talking about hundreds of immediate victims and thousands of secondary victims that come in contact with the skin/clothing of any primary victims that ran away.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
It's not. This isn't even about Syria and I've come to realized that it never was. This whole thing is about the world's desire to find some kind of counterweight to the US. If they can stop the US from acting here then they will have a sense that they have some measure of control. No one cared about Syria until the US threw it's hat into the ring and now people are speaking out whereas they were silent before. The victory they want has nothing to do with civilians.
That's actually quite insightful. Whether or not it's right is certainly open for debate but the sentiment is grounded in the reality of modern geopolitics.
That said, I fail to comprehend your refusal to acknowledge that the decision to invade Iraq under false pretences is ultimately the contributing factor behind the complete lack-luster of a unified response - not just to the recent massacre via chemical weapons - but the whole Syrian civil war itself. I think it is fair to say that it is, at home and abroad.
I'm actually kind of with SuperLib on this one. While the UN is characterized by inaction on a good day the current utter paralysis of the organization is actually kind of disturbing. The argument isn't really whether or not the Syrian government used chemical weapons on its own people, that has been almost universally accepted based off of the weak and conspiracy laden arguments to the contrary, but rather whether the world is willing to allow another US intervention on it's behalf.
Every time the US or NATO acts in a trouble spot it highlights the glaring fact that the UN, and by extension most world powers, is functionally useless by comparison. I don't doubt that Iraq is a contributing factor to what equates to an international boycott on US political influence but I think it's a component, not a root cause.
So now one of two things happen. The US bows to the wishes of the international community and takes a seat, effectively resigning its perceived authority. This would be a massive blow to the American psyche, even American's against the intervention on principle may find themselves reeling if they see their leaders unable to act on what has been proclaimed as a moral conviction. The other thing that could happen is that the US rallies enough support and totally defies the entirety of the international community and intervene's anyway. In that instance the status quo is maintained.
I'm a proponent of intervention, not for the aforementioned political reasons but because I believe that NBC weapons are and should be the ultimate litmus test. I believe NBC weapons are fundamentally different from, and more destructive, than conventional weapons both in terms of real damage and on a philosophical level as it pertains to the lengths at which a state will go to win a conflict. A UN that can abide their use in gridlock is not one that I feel comfortable giving any level of authority, it reeks of apathy and malaise on a global scale.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Agent Orange is the combination of the code names for Herbicide Orange (HO) and Agent LNX, one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its chemical warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use.
As well as many US soldiers who came in contact with it because the US didn't fully understand the long term effects of the substance. An act of negligence hardly vindicates an action of malice and even if the US had full comprehension of the effects of Agent Orange are you suggesting that it makes the use of Sarin gas permissible? An appeal to hypocrisy is not much of a leg to stand on.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
well, again another war and more destruction. first of all it should be investigated through an independent agency with reputed people who actually used chemical weapons.
The UN probe was only sent to determine whether or not a chemical weapon was used. The UN lacks the time, ability, or authority to determine who used actually used it so the idea of waiting for the UN team report is essentially pointless. Unless a few hundred people spontaneously learned how to kill themselves without visible sign of death I'm pretty sure we already know a chemical weapon was used by somebody.
why Asad would use such a weapon which provoke the world and start a war. but wait a minute just look to other cases.
From what I've gathered in other news sites and in government debriefs it probably wasn't Assad directly but either his brother or an overzealous commander. In any case the rebel forces lack the ability to launch an attack on the scale required for that many overnight casualties.
Wow, we'd better increase our military size in case we're next on their hit list
Because that's worked so well lately. The primary drivers for military expansion in most countries is to combat the unemployment and lack of opportunity that is becoming rampant in many developing nations.
The U.K. is showing a little bit of sanity and going, "Hey, maybe everyone should just calm down"
Chemical weapon use was declared unacceptable and set as a point at which action was needed long before the weapons were used. In US documents there have been numerous small scale chemical attacks which have culminated in this much larger one. The whole point of saying chemical weapons are a no-no is to prevent their use in future conflicts. I'd rather see every chemical weapon facility in Syria leveled than risk their proliferation or further use.
while the U.S.A. is shouting for more innocent blood
Hyperbole, charming. Nothing in any news source I can locate indicates anything of the sort. By all accounts the US is interested in removing chemical weapons, their manufacture, and storage from play by using strategic missile strikes from one of the several navy cruisers off in the Mediterranean sea. Anybody with an inkling of common sense would probably know not to be hanging out around such sites in the next couple of weeks and if they decide to camp out there anyway, I guess that's tough.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
So far, the whole thing looks like a police telling a criminal when he is coming, what he is going to do. If you are a damn good police officer, you keep everything in dark and surprises to the criminal. Be swift and move fast.
Realistically speaking we're talking about a turkey shoot. There really isn't anything Syria can do to stop US cruise missiles and it would be truly mad to try anything against the US ships in the Mediterranean. In some instances waiting for the bombings to come can be demoralizing in itself, though not so much in this particular situation.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Posted in: Some helpful tips on Japanese etiquette