Syria

[quade 4]

Gravitymaster

How many American lives are you willing to forfeit so we can protect people who generally hate us?

1) You've made an assumption not in evidence. You assume a number of American lives MUST be lost. Clearly that isn't the actual case considering the US stand-off capabilities.

2) You've additionally assumed that if we saved the lives of people who "generally hate us" they would continue to do so. It's entirely possible they would stop hating us and see we've saved them from a pretty horrible death. Hard to say definitively either way, but I'm not the one automatically making the assumption -- you are.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Gravitymaster

How many American lives are you willing to forfeit so we can protect people who generally hate us?

How many dogs to you let your neighbor kill before you take some sort of action to try to stop it?

It's called being a human. It's called empathy for your fellow man.

Sad to see some people just don't have it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mpohl 1]

Disagree.

May I suggest something closer to home. Like the use of approved pharmaceuticals to kill people clearly incompetent (i.e., mentally ill) for their actions. And yes, the rest of the world thinks that it is an abomination, not justice.

So, why worry about other "chemicals." Worry about your own...!

Better the US. Before trying to improve the world!

quade

***Seems like a good way out of a problem we shouldn't have stuck our noes into in the first place. That much is for sure.

Sounds a bit like the "America First" position prior to entering into WWII.

I'm sorry. I can't buy into that line of reasoning. Chemical weapons use isn't just an attack on your specific enemies. Innocents aren't simply collateral damage from splash damage of a bomb going off.

Sorry, but it's far beyond immoral to not try to do something to stop it.

We can bicker all day and night about what that is, but it IS our business whether or not we decide to take this or that specific action.

It's like saying it's none of your business if some little hooligan in your neighborhood is poisoning pets as long as they aren't YOUR pets. Yeah, it sure the fuck is.

[quade 4]

Spoken like a true fan of a maniacal dictator.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

quade

***How many American lives are you willing to forfeit so we can protect people who generally hate us?

1) You've made an assumption not in evidence. You assume a number of American lives MUST be lost. Clearly that isn't the actual case considering the US stand-off capabilities.

Nope, you are the one making assumptions. I only asked how many YOU were willing to forfeit. One, two, a thousand? It was a question, not a statement.

2) You've additionally assumed that if we saved the lives of people who "generally hate us" they would continue to do so. It's entirely possible they would stop hating us and see we've saved them from a pretty horrible death. Hard to say definitively either way, but I'm not the one automatically making the assumption -- you are.

Yes, the way the Iraqi's just love us. How about the Haitians? Why don't you make a trip down there where you can feel the love they have for Americans.

[quade 4]

Or the Japanese! Hell, we nuked those guys so clearly they want to kill us all now. The GERMANS! They won't even sell us cars now.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mpohl 1]

That's the best you can do? Pitiful.

I have never advocated for Bashar-al Assad. Just get your/our own house in order first. And that includes the use of "chemical weapons" on incompetent defendants domestically.

Which part of that don't you get?

quade

Spoken like a true fan of a maniacal dictator.

[mpohl 1]

I, for one, am glad that the US military is drastically lessening its foot print in Germany. Even as a US citizen, I will say that there is something wrong w/ flying the Star Spangled Banner on German soil.

And yes, Germans will sell you cars. And Chinese will sell you iphones. That does not mean they are your friends, or even remotely agree w/ what the US is doing.

You are loosing it.

quade

Or the Japanese! Hell, we nuked those guys so clearly they want to kill us all now. The GERMANS! They won't even sell us cars now.

[Gravitymaster 0]

How about the French? They hate us, so do many Germans. Don't you read these forums and all the US bashing that goes on? Don't even get me started on the Kiwi's.

[mpohl 1]

Seems the British Parliament voted against it. For now.

The UN hasn't voted yet, but Russia and China will certainly not support any action.

If at all, the lone aggressor might be the United States. In violation of all accepted international laws and conventions.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Here's where things stand.

Quote

Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!

Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.

But Gulf states are pro-Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood!

Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!

Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the U.S.!

Gulf states are pro-U.S. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!

Welcome to the Middle East, and have a nice day.

-Larry Elder

[DanG 1]

Quote

If at all, the lone aggressor might be the United States. In violation of all accepted international laws and conventions.

But gassing civilians, which is against all international laws and conventions, is okay?

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

I concur with Andy's assessment. The learned counselor has such a good idea that it probably won't make it to the teleprompter.

The problem that the President faces, however, becomes domestic. He has spent the past few years criticising the "party of no" and going on the record as acting if Congress won't. It will affect him in the future.

I think the course of action should be, "Sequester has eliminated our strike capabilities against Syria. Republicans are again preventing me from protecting the interests of Americans worldwide."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[shropshire 0]

Common sense in the Commons ... who'd have thunk it?

BBC News

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[tkhayes 348]

My letter to Congress yesterday (and copied the White House):

Date: August 29, 2013
Senator Bill Nelson
Senator Marco Rubio
Congressman Gus Bilirakis

Dear Congress and Senate:
Once again we find ourselves on the verge of yet another war, invasion, military action or whatever face you might want to put on it.

Yes I am talking about Syria. I am vehemently against any military action there regardless of what atrocities might be happening. I am sure that the Syrian people take comfort in knowing that the USA will wait until 100,000 people are killed and then only act when 1000 are killed by chemical weapons. I will remind you that some 30000-40000 children starve to death in the world every day, yet the USA does NOT spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to resolve THAT atrocity, yet has not problem with pumping billions or even trillions into failed military globe-trotting.

Bottom line? We are not the world’s police department. We do not have an interest in Syria that makes this worthwhile. We do not have the money or the lives to spare, and I expect that 80-90% of Americans agree with me on NOT going in there for any reason or at any expense.
For the US government to act in this manner shows an incredibly negligent neglect of the American people and their wishes.

I got an email today from Congressman Bilirakis regarding the issue of going in there without the approval of Congress. He failed to actually state what his own stance was on Syria and whether or not he would even support such a move IF and WHEN it came before Congress. A call to his office today confirmed what I expected. Mr. Bilirakis is really only interested in (hopefully) finding some way to make the President look bad, and not really addressing the issue of the potential action itself.

Once again, I state: DO NOT go into Syria, DO NOT. Not for any reason, Not ever. And make that a publicly stated policy so that other neighbors and countries of Syria (which are actually affected by the conflict) can then get involved and fix their own problems. They are sitting back, more than happy to let the USA spend its money to try to fix a problem for them. Not on my dime please.

Sincerely,

J. David Hayes
“Really irritated constituent”

And as for Quade - read the part about the 30,000-40,000 children that starve to death every day int he world and then talk to me about how going into Syria makes us 'human' instead of 'watching our neighbors kill their dogs' as you put it. If we are so fucking human, then we would do something about the ongoing genocides in Africa.

I make no such claim that humans in general, or especially Americans give a shit about human life. We just pretend that we do. We really only care about what directly affects us, family and friends and beyond that, we have little regard, if any, for human life.

[shropshire 0]

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[lawrocket 3]

shropshire

Common sense in the Commons ... who'd have thunk it?

BBC News

Miliband's maneuvering has apparently rankled some people, eh?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[shropshire 0]

lawrocket

***Common sense in the Commons ... who'd have thunk it?

BBC News

Miliband's maneuvering has apparently rankled some people, eh?

That doesn't surprise me at all LR. The hole vote was really about political posturing, I'm afraid.

Miliband is a weak leader and is likely jumping ON the NO VOTE bandwagon, He certainly isn't driving it.. Public opinion is.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[livendive 8]

I disagree, based on the whole "good men standing idly by" premise. If we have demonstrable proof that the government used chemical weapons against its own people despite a long-standing international ban and a much more recent warning of consequences by nations interested in upholding the ban, then I think our best (loosely used term) course of action is to make the Syrian government regret that move. Neither Russia nor China is going to intervene, and I doubt Israel would terribly mind an excuse to bloody Iran's nose. Godwin notwithstanding, I think the last century has shown some compelling examples of what can happen when spectator countries allow atrocities to occur on the premise of "not our business". While a policy of non-intervention is appealing in a general sense, NBC attacks are beyond the pale and deserving of a rigorous and convincing reaction, both to punish the perpetrators and to stand as warning to future imitators. News channels are saying that intelligence reports about the attack are to be released today. I'm curious how robust it is and will withhold judgement until I've seen it myself.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[ChrisD 0]

I am extremely concerned that there are so many US news agencies putting a spin on who what and where we should and shouldn't be on the globe.

When USA Today, runs a straw poll indicating "most Americans" want to invade a country and kick the shit out of them for no other reason....


This is just nuts....

Folks, the democracy is being replaced and your all being told what to think and how to act!

I haven't seen a more war mongering attitude except for the time I was in Korea, that's North Korea. And that was on a exchange visit....

We are being prepped for major global conflict as a soulution for economic greed and interests.

War is being glorified and promoted on an unprecedented scale.

See it for what it is.



Again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY

C

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[quade 4]

Quote

I make no such claim that humans in general, or especially Americans give a shit about human life. We just pretend that we do. We really only care about what directly affects us, family and friends and beyond that, we have little regard, if any, for human life.

I guess Ayn Rand was right. It shouldn't just be a dog eat dog world, but we should celebrate and revel in it. Fuck anyone else. The only one that matters is, "me."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Skyrad 0]

Andy9o8

***Well said Tony, growing opposition every day. The government have had to embarrassingly climb down over an attack decision today. The other two allies that haven't been mentioned in the post you responded to are Turkey and Israel. Israel has already conducted bombing missions in Syria and Turkey has had more than one cross boarder scuffle already.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783


Parliament just voted down Cameron's motion to approve UK military action against Syria. And Cameron now says he will comply with the majority's wishes. (I'll bet privately he's heaving a sigh of relief - now he's off the hook.)

This is Obama's slim chance for an out from the corner he's painted into. Congress is starting to demand that it be consulted before Obama takes military action. Obama should do exactly that, on the grounds that the democratic process requires it, blah, blah, whatever. If Congress approves action, then he can point the finger back at them if/when it goes sideways. If Congress says no, Obama can then say that he's doing exactly what Cameron is doing - respecting the democratic process. (Blah, blah, whatever.)

I agree, it will be interesting to see which way he goes. My money is on a strike regardless and without Congressional approval.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

quade

***Seems like a good way out of a problem we shouldn't have stuck our noes into in the first place. That much is for sure.

Sounds a bit like the "America First" position prior to entering into WWII.

I'm sorry. I can't buy into that line of reasoning. Chemical weapons use isn't just an attack on your specific enemies. Innocents aren't simply collateral damage from splash damage of a bomb going off.

Sorry, but it's far beyond immoral to not try to do something to stop it.

We can bicker all day and night about what that is, but it IS our business whether or not we decide to take this or that specific action.

It's like saying it's none of your business if some little hooligan in your neighborhood is poisoning pets as long as they aren't YOUR pets. Yeah, it sure the fuck is.

Problem is that we still don't know with any certainty who did it. Investigation is ongoing.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[quade 4]

Skyrad

Problem is that we still don't know with any certainty who did it. Investigation is ongoing.

I'll agree there is still AN investigation ongoing.

The problem is you, nor I, nor anybody outside of the "other" investigation can really ever be 100% certain, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the UN inspection team is not the only people on the planet capable of making a determination. It would be nice if they could provide independent confirmation so people like you and me can have confidence in whatever happens next.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jclalor 12]

Quote

quade

***Problem is that we still don't know with any certainty who did it. Investigation is ongoing.

I'll agree there is still AN investigation ongoing.

The problem is you, nor I, nor anybody outside of the "other" investigation can really ever be 100% certain, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the UN inspection team is not the only people on the planet capable of making a determination. It would be nice if they could provide independent confirmation so people like you and me can have confidence in whatever happens next.

The UN will only confirm if chemicals weapons have been used, and not what side has used them.