I understand what you said. My point is it doesn't matter where the weapons were, only that they shouldn't have been there. For that I hold the Obama administration accountable, the same way I held Bush accountable.

 

Different discussion. You didn't need to quote me to make that point. I only responded because you quoted me.

That has nothing to do with our discussion.

 

I said chemical weapons were destroyed. Capt278 and UKMF said no. I posted information about 1,300 tons of Syrian chemical weapons being destroyed and that the US Navy helped destroy them. That is all I am trying to prove in the discussion.

 

Your splitting hairs at this point. Chemical weapons were used in the attack last week, everyone knows it. I can't see why anyone would waste their time defending such a thing. But whatever, I guess politics take precedent over lives..

Your splitting hairs at this point. Chemical weapons were used in the attack last week, everyone knows it. I can't see why anyone would waste their time defending such a thing. But whatever, I guess politics take precedent over lives..

 

He's not debating whether or not chemical weapons were used or defending it. It's really quite simple. A couple posters implied that no chemical weapons were destroyed during the Obama administration, he proved otherwise. That's it.

Different discussion. You didn't need to quote me to make that point. I only responded because you quoted me.

 

You are correct. My bad.

Your splitting hairs at this point. Chemical weapons were used in the attack last week, everyone knows it. I can't see why anyone would waste their time defending such a thing. But whatever, I guess politics take precedent over lives..

 

Huh? The only thing I am defending is my statement that chemical weapons were removed in 2013-14. A couple posters called me out on it and insinuated it was perhaps a conspiracy and no weapons were removed. I presented proof to back it up. 1,300 tons of chemical weapons were removed and the US helped to destroy them.

 

As to proving a political point, I am just making sure we consider all the facts as we discuss these issues. Facts that do not fit someone's political agenda should not be ignored. I prefer that over taking slanted media talking points and echoing them, or just reading a headline and then trying to say it proves a point.

 

By the way, you do know I have supported Trump's missile attack. What political point am I trying to make by proving 1,300 tons of chemical weapons were destroyed?

Huh? The only thing I am defending is my statement that chemical weapons were removed in 2013-14. A couple posters called me out on it and insinuated it was perhaps a conspiracy and no weapons were removed. I presented proof to back it up. 1,300 tons of chemical weapons were removed and the US helped to destroy them.

 

As to proving a political point, I am just making sure we consider all the facts as we discuss these issues. Facts that do not fit someone's political agenda should not be ignored. I prefer that over taking slanted media talking points and echoing them, or just reading a headline and then trying to say it proves a point.

 

By the way, you do know I have supported Trump's missile attack. What political point am I trying to make by proving 1,300 tons of chemical weapons were destroyed?

 

I mistook what you were intending to say. As far as the bolded, there is no doubt in my mind that chemical weapons were removed. Whether it was all of them or not, who knows.

Watchdog: Nerve agent Sarin used in Syria attack - CNN.com

 

It is difficult to watch, especially if you are a parent, but this is why the US and the world should go in to Syria and remove the regime.