Chip Bok by Chip Bok

Chip Bok

Comments (6) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago

    Get it right Doc. Yes, it was done after WW1 (however a “red line” was not mentioned) further after time passes and reviews were done it was found that the prohibition did NOT INCLUDE “use within a state’s own borders in a civil conflict” (WIKI) (Eric Croddy, assessing the Protocol in 2005).

    So Assad may not have violated anything plus Syria is not a signatory of the document.

    Now please give me a reference where the US Congress used that terminology since I can not find one……please.

    Obama said with conviction and certainty the following: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” the president said. “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

    Nope, you have it wrong AGAIN simply because you have such low regard for your southern neighbors.

  2. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    The Geneva Conventions were about “civilizing” wars. Like the mandate for full metal jackets on bullets so that more would be only wounded, rather than killed outright. Cluster bombs, white phosphorus, napalm, plastic mines that remain on the “battlefields”, killing kids for years, yes it’s all so much “kinder” and sophisticated than nerve agents.

  3. IntoVirginiaCreeper

    IntoVirginiaCreeper said, over 3 years ago

    And I don’t and won’t have health care worth having you lying sack of … Sorry! I let my emotions run away with me! :)

  4. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago

    you may need to take notes if you can’t keep up.

    The spin is that Obama did not make the statement when in August of 2012 he did.

    There was no mention of what he based his statement on.

    Yes, the Internation community did ban the use of Chemical weapons. There were no set “punishments” if one would violate it.

    Yes, the US Congress did ratify that treaty. Again, no legislation outlining consequences for violation.

    Obama set a limit. Someone called his bluff. Now he’s back peddling big time.

    And I suppose you think “someone” should spank Assad but no one has proved anything in a court of law and shouldn’t it be an international court NOT just the USA that does the spanking?

    It’s all kabuki theater anyway……..

  5. exoticdoc2

    exoticdoc2 said, over 3 years ago

    And of course there is wimpy little Canada leading the way by doing nothing useful. Hypocrite. But what do you expect from someone who has no valid basis for objective morality in the first place?

  6. exoticdoc2

    exoticdoc2 said, over 3 years ago

    In this case the Obamanation should not be allowed to support his muslim buddies since they are the greater of two evils. Syrian rebels affiliated with al Qaeda and other jihadist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, have committed atrocities across Syria. They murdered a Catholic priest. They slaughtered civilians and regime prisoners. They attacked a Christian village even while Congress debated intervention, shelling nuns and other civilians. They cut out and ate the hearts of their enemies and brazenly recorded it for the Internet. Scum and just another batch of terrorists. While the chemical weapons use is horrendous because it can kill too indiscriminately, supporting the muslim bortherhood in any form is at least as horrific.

  7. Refresh Comments.