The Red Line: Part Deux

[Obsessed]

He has nothing to gain from a chemical attack at this point. The guy isn't stupid. I'd put money on it being from the rebels.

I agree. It's perfect for them. They get the USA to take out their enemy by framing him.

 

[lawgator1]

Conspiracy theories itt

 

[Obsessed]

Conspiracy theories itt

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Carl Pickens]

With the reelection of BHO the whole world now knows how damn dumb Americans actually are.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Thought experiment.

How many of you would change your position if NATO and the UN (that would require Russian and Chinese approval) supported such an attack both in spirit and militarily?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Thought experiment.

How many of you would change your position if NATO and the UN (that would require Russian and Chinese approval) supported such an attack both in spirit and militarily?

I would tell them to get after it.

 

[BennisDrewer]

"Revenge Of The Cold War l: Part 2 (This time it's Syria-ouse)"

Putin says Russia will assist Syria if attacked - MarketWatch

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

With the reelection of BHO the whole world now knows how damn dumb Americans actually are.

ost-4-1090547912: but really, it's just pathetic that they fell for it (BS) again.

 

[allvol123]

You obliterate the entire country or do nothing. There is no in between that does anything positive for this country.

 

[MG1968]

Rep. Alan Grayson: Syria Intelligence Manipulated - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

LG's favorite congressman experiences a rare bit of lucidity.

 

[lawgator1]

I would tell them to get after it.

So in your view the UN, Russia, and China have veto power over US military affairs? Interesting.

 

[PKT_VOL]

So in your view the UN, Russia, and China have veto power over US military affairs? Interesting.

Huh? You are twisting/perverting my thought experiment.

 

[MG1968]

So in your view the UN, Russia, and China have veto power over US military affairs? Interesting.

They do if you accept that the UN Security Council is the ultimate arbiter of whether or not military action can be used in a particular instance.

 

[lawgator1]

Huh? You are twisting/perverting my thought experiment.

Not at all.

Your question asks whether we should strike based on what folks like China or Russia or the UN think, as opposed to what is in our interests.

BPV fell for it.

 

[lawgator1]

They do if you accept that the UN Security Council is the ultimate arbiter of whether or not military action can be used in a particular instance.

I don't. Do you?

 

[MG1968]

I don't. Do you?

No.

That said, a strike against Syria is not in America's interest either.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Not at all.

Your question asks whether we should strike based on what folks like China or Russia or the UN think, as opposed to what is in our interests.

BPV fell for it.

That was not the point. The point was to take away the unilateral angle and add in consensus of moral outrage (as with CW treaties).

I am slowly trying to see how people in thread view this situation if certain facts change. If we stop looking at our own immediate self-interest to possibly our long term best interest. From politics, end-game, etc, to the morality of the situation.

The more I think about it, the more I find this situation fascinating due to all the different facets one can look at the situation from.

 

[lawgator1]

Well, as I said earlier, if I had to vote now, I'd vote no.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Well, as I said earlier, if I had to vote now, I'd vote no.

Would you change your position if NATO and the UN (that would require Russian and Chinese approval) supported such an attack both in spirit and militarily?

 

[lawgator1]

Would you change your position if NATO and the UN (that would require Russian and Chinese approval) supported such an attack both in spirit and militarily?

It would help, but really it wouldn't be a significant factor.

 

[PKT_VOL]

It would help, but really it wouldn't be a significant factor.

The attacks continue?

They killed 50,000 instead of 1,400?

AQ rebels win the war?

 

[MG1968]

The attacks continue?

They killed 50,000 instead of 1,400?

AQ rebels win the war?

I know these questions are directed at LG, but my response would be, "So?".

 

[PKT_VOL]

I know these questions are directed at LG, but my response would be, "So?".

We have no moral obligation, human to human, to stop injustices and abuses of others when we can?

 

[volinbham]

Thought experiment.

How many of you would change your position if NATO and the UN (that would require Russian and Chinese approval) supported such an attack both in spirit and militarily?

I would still not be in support of a "punishment" strike.

Without knowing what the goal of such a strike was I wouldn't support it.

 

[MG1968]

We have no moral obligation, human to human, to stop injustices and abuses of others when we can?

Not with our military.

Joe Biden, of all people, said it best in his 2008 convention speech that the US should lead through the "power of it's example rather than the example of it's power".

If the US intervened via military force every time there was a humanitarian crisis somewhere in the world, we'd still have troops in Rwanda, The Sudan, North Korea, Iran, Kashmir, Tibet, Burma, and so on.