The Red Line: Part Deux

#1,077
#1,077
MG1968 said:
well, to combine them all into one, I don't care who used the chemical weapons, the US doesn't need to get involved other than to take it's case to the United Nations and let the "world" deal with it.
Click to expand...

Why take it's case to the United Nations if it isn't to get involved?
 
#1,079
#1,079
PKT_VOL said:
Sad. I hope that person doesn't perish or get critically injured while waiting for the police.

Also interesting that you say "call the police". We have been, for better or worse, the "world police". The UN was created for situations such as Syria. The fact that the UN passes treaties, condemning such acts and weapons, then doesn't have the backbone to follow through on their own moral codes, has made the US the de facto "world police".

We both agree it gets tiring always being the "world's police". But to be honest, the thought of the consequences and morality of not having some sort of "police" to stop humanitarian atrocities when they can, is perhaps more worrisome. As evidence by you professing that you would teach your child to stand by and watch someone continue to beat the sh*t out of a defenseless person (in the name of waiting for the police), I think it is disconcerting that we seemingly only care about our immediate self-interest (can be seen in most of the problems facing this country).
Click to expand...

I have no obligation to anyone that isn't blood. Just like we have no obligation to the Syrians.
 
Last edited:
#1,080
#1,080
MG1968 said:
Because sometimes leaders should delegate and let others do all the heavy lifting.
Click to expand...

So you are ok with the mission (think it is legit) but don't want to have any part of it?

Would you accept some of the "heavy lifting" if the UN and NATO approved it?
 
#1,084
#1,084
PKT_VOL said:
So you are ok with the mission (think it is legit) but don't want to have any part of it?

Would you accept some of the "heavy lifting" if the UN and NATO approved it?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't. In fact, I hope I live long enough to see the United States remove itself from both organizations.
 
#1,086
#1,086
Gannon Goodson said:
Because you're using what's called an appeal to emotion. It's a classic tactic of the Right and Left to fund overseas military excursions and the welfare state.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. I guess we shouldn't intevine with genocide. It isn't our problem. The Holocast wasn't our problem. Why care about 9/11? It wasn't my problem. Why catch a murderer stateside? It's not my blood, not my problem.
 
#1,088
#1,088
PKT_VOL said:
Ridiculous. I guess we shouldn't intevine with genocide. It isn't our problem. The Holocast wasn't our problem. Why care about 9/11? It wasn't my problem. Why catch a murderer stateside? It's not my blood, not my problem.
Click to expand...

That's quite a leap in logic. If we should intervene with genocide, then where the hell have you and the rest of the war hawks been for the last two years? Over 100,000 have been killed in Syria's civil war, but now that (allegedly) 1,400 die in a chemical weapons attack, you're ready to start lobbing bombs (and billions in taxpayer money) to help people who would rather cut your head off with a rusty blade.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gRKC0rxra4[/youtube]
 
#1,089
#1,089
PKT_VOL said:
So you are ok with the mission (think it is legit) but don't want to have any part of it?

Would you accept some of the "heavy lifting" if the UN and NATO approved it?
Click to expand...

I don't even know what the mission is. I do know that the last thing I want to see is the US involved in another nation building exercise in the Middle East.
 
#1,090
#1,090
Gannon Goodson said:
That's quite a leap in logic. If we should intervene with genocide, then where the hell have you and the rest of the war hawks been for the last two years? Over 100,000 have been killed in Syria's civil war, but now that (allegedly) 1,400 die in a chemical weapons attack, you're ready to start lobbing bombs (and billions in taxpayer money) to help people who would rather cut your head off with a rusty blade.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gRKC0rxra4[/youtube]
Click to expand...

Not a leap of logic. Just following the logic in this thread.

There should have been a bigger international humanitarian effort for refugees and a push to get innocent civilians out of the country.

Two armed sides fighting a civil war is not genocide.
 
#1,091
#1,091
MG1968 said:
I don't even know what the mission is. I do know that the last thing I want to see is the US involved in another nation building exercise in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

Agreed on both fronts. Obama is floundering fish.

The two legit missions in my mind would be:

1) Destroying all CW in Syria. This accomplishes two things. It prevents CW weapons being used on civilians again. It also keeps CW weapons out of the hands of AQ (a long term US interest).

2) Take out those responsible for the attack. According to Obama, we incepted a call between those responsible.

I much prefer the first one. Obama doesn't seem interested in either. Based on the CWC, I think 189 countries have affirmed the former but don't have the balls to see it through.
 
#1,092
#1,092
PKT_VOL said:
Are we even talking about the same thing?

Two armed sides fighting each other can continue to do so. That is their business. When you intentionally start slaughtering innocent civilians, especially with chemical weapons, that is genocide.
Click to expand...

If we were to intervene, those innocent civilians are the ones who would need to step up and run their country. If they can't come together as a country now and stop cowering in fear, then what motivation will they have later? To achieve independence from those you deem evil, you have to be willing to sacrifice of yourself before you ask others to sacrifice for you.
 
#1,093
#1,093
I haven't seen them yet but CNN has obtained videos shown in the classified Senate Foreign Intelligence briefings.
 
#1,095
#1,095
volinbham said:
SIAP

No Syria Attack Without Congressional Approval, Obama Aide Says - ABC News

Hope Congress says "NO". Love the whole - I could do it anyway if I want but I won't if they don't agree.

We've gone from "I don't have to and won't seek authority" to "I don't have to but will seek but will still do what I want" to "I don't have to but will seek and will not if they say no"

All this from the guy who keeps telling us about sending a message
Click to expand...

He will send a message when and if he wants to or not.
 
#1,097
#1,097
PKT_VOL said:
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?
Click to expand...

If this were the case we wouldn't have the issues in the ME we have now. Russia needs to wake up and realize that radical islam will eventually hit them too. All of those stan's they keep chopping pieces off of will eventually bite them in the ass.
 
#1,099
#1,099
If one read all the posts here and digested all the POV's, one could convince themselves that Assad had nothing to gain and the rebels had everything to gain. I am still not convinced that the rebels didn't do this. I don't trust intelligence (if you can call it that) that has been combed by Barry to prove a point of this magnitude. I would have to vote no until something proven by someone other than Barry was shown to me.
 
#1,100
#1,100
82_VOL_83 said:
If this were the case we wouldn't have the issues in the ME we have now. Russia needs to wake up and realize that radical islam will eventually hit them too. All of those stan's they keep chopping pieces off of will eventually bite them in the ass.
Click to expand...

Russia is all too familiar with radical Islam (see Chechnya).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top