billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
billvon>If Syria turns over its chemical weapons, will you still see it as a failure even though
>no US blood or treasure was spent?
Of course. To many people here, the only successful outcome is one that screws over Obama. Thus a quagmire of a war, with heavy casualties on both sides, would, to them, be a success.
If Assad did indeed gas his people (and Quade certainly believes so), then it certainly would be a failure. If a murderer agrees to give up his gun, but serves no penalty for killing someone, how is that not a failure? And the message it sends to others - you get a freebie.
And if the message that gets sent is that when face with US retaliation, just pretend to concede and stall until the next Administration comes along, how is that not a failure. That's pretty much the story of how North Korea completed its nuclear weapons development. Saddam tried to play the same game of dancing on the edge, but he misread the situation post 9/11.
No, the Obama Administration declared with no doubt that Assad used chemical weapons and that is per our policy unacceptable behavior. If no punishment occurs because of political expediency, it weakens Obama's power in particular, and US in general.
You should not read the above as endorsement for war - I already made clear statements against action. But we can't say this is a nice rosy ending either.
"Did you feel the same way about W during the Iraq war as it became apparent that the very reason we went in was a lie? Interesting how no one on the right complained then, and I find it rich that it's the same people who are against bombing Syria now for reasons such as "our treasury is drained" among other ones."
As for George Walker Bush, I felt he was just attempting to finish what his father started. I had been called up for Desert Storm (stayed in CONUS), and felt that "W" should just take out Sadam like RR had attempted with MM Gadhafi. Didn't happen.
Lie? Too many veterans came home sick, and too many said there were WMDs. You don't remember seeing all those empty gas canisters laying around? Even Israeli Intel said Sadam had buried tons of WMDs in the Syrian desert. Too bad our fourth branch of government, the liberal media, did not see fit to pass on anything that would help Bush.
All those democrats signed on, and all those allies united to knock out Sadam Hussein. How come they won't do it for barry barack? How come the pope is against the President of the United States; plus all those countries that signed on to punish countries that use chemical weapons to kill the innocent? Me, I don't think the World trusts barry barack. They watched him in disbelief engineer the overthrow of two stable governments in the Middle East: Libya and Egypt. With Egypt, they watched him attempt to install the muslim brotherhood while insisting they needed F-16s and the latest tanks. Do you think maybe it's his color?
Why do you think the rest of the world doesn't snuggle up to barry barack?
Funny, I've never seen the Russians play Dallas. You're right. I might not be paying attention.
As for George Walker Bush, I felt he was just attempting to finish what his father started. I had been called up for Desert Storm (stayed in CONUS), and felt that "W" should just take out Sadam like RR had attempted with MM Gadhafi. Didn't happen.
Lie? Too many veterans came home sick, and too many said there were WMDs. You don't remember seeing all those empty gas canisters laying around? Even Israeli Intel said Sadam had buried tons of WMDs in the Syrian desert. Too bad our fourth branch of government, the liberal media, did not see fit to pass on anything that would help Bush.
All those democrats signed on, and all those allies united to knock out Sadam Hussein. How come they won't do it for barry barack? How come the pope is against the President of the United States; plus all those countries that signed on to punish countries that use chemical weapons to kill the innocent? Me, I don't think the World trusts barry barack. They watched him in disbelief engineer the overthrow of two stable governments in the Middle East: Libya and Egypt. With Egypt, they watched him attempt to install the muslim brotherhood while insisting they needed F-16s and the latest tanks. Do you think maybe it's his color?
Why do you think the rest of the world doesn't snuggle up to barry barack?
Funny, I've never seen the Russians play Dallas. You're right. I might not be paying attention.
Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.
[Reply]Whoever sits in the chair is morally obligated
Why is it that the avowed secular point to morality as if it is an objective truth? As if it is something inherent in the understanding of the human soul.
It isn't. Different people with different opinions view things differently. Morality is pretty much entirely subjective. Hence, my own view of morality rebukes substituting personal feeling for objective fact. There's something messianic about it that just rubs me the wrong way.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
The failure is, "what is the policy goal?" In this case, the President said he wants to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again. The Russians happened to broker a deal where that happens. If that's the policy, then there's success.
But I agree that there is much more to look at. It becomes a balance of successes and failures. I think the biggest failure of the Admin was a demonstration of ineptitude. Or, at the very least, what is widely perceived as ineptitude.
One success I DO see is the "stated" intention to get Congress more involved. If this ultimately shifts a large amount of power back to Congress, I will view Obama's presidency as the most significant since FDR. And he will shoot up on my "Presidential Rankings" list as a President who left the country better off than he found it.
My opinion.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
But I agree that there is much more to look at. It becomes a balance of successes and failures. I think the biggest failure of the Admin was a demonstration of ineptitude. Or, at the very least, what is widely perceived as ineptitude.
One success I DO see is the "stated" intention to get Congress more involved. If this ultimately shifts a large amount of power back to Congress, I will view Obama's presidency as the most significant since FDR. And he will shoot up on my "Presidential Rankings" list as a President who left the country better off than he found it.
My opinion.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
quade 4
lawrocket[Reply]Whoever sits in the chair is morally obligated
Why is it that the avowed secular point to morality as if it is an objective truth?
Regardless of your opinion, a certain level of morality is objective. I think few people would agree the killing of innocent people is only subjectively immoral. Hell, buddy, it's not even exclusively humanly immoral.
So, go read some anthropology and primatology books before you start up with this "avowed secular" bullshit dig at me when talking about morality. You ought to know better.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
rushmc 23
billvon>If he wants credit for the successes then he gets nailed for the failures.
Like I said, I know the nailing is important to you. Fine, get your hammer. I am more concerned about wars (specifically avoiding them.)
The way the US is seen in the future is indeed an issue. And as a result of this the world now sees the US as someone pretty eager to get involved in civil wars (which is bad) but who will back down if their 'target' agrees to negotiate (which is good.) The next time some tyrant considers gassing his people he'll be quicker to run to Putin (or Merkel, or Chavez, or Cameron, or whoever) when the US starts rattling its sword. Great; whatever gets them to the table.
I'd actually prefer we didn't rattle our sword so much, but I'd much rather have rattlers than imperialists running things.
The problem with your position is, Obama "missed" this war by acident!
So, his incompetence has a high probability of doing something similar or worse
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
The reason he is in this mess is because the ONLY thing he cares about is how he looks politically.
He does not care about Syria, it's people or if gas is used or not.
In a case like this, giving him a pass is just as dangerous as what was just avoided... .... ... .... ... by acident
And Paul, saying Obama had no other choice is a cop out
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Perhaps a certain amount is. But innocents are frequently killed for the purpose of accomplishing the supposed moral goal.
For example, if a military attack on Syria occurs and someone is killed. Has not the moral obligation now become itself immoral? Is that killing justified? Depends on whose perspective.
I guess I'm just tired of these universal truths. And the idea that the failure to kill people is immoral.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
For example, if a military attack on Syria occurs and someone is killed. Has not the moral obligation now become itself immoral? Is that killing justified? Depends on whose perspective.
I guess I'm just tired of these universal truths. And the idea that the failure to kill people is immoral.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
And yes, I think this is ridiculous:
[Url]http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE98B0EB20130912?irpc=932[/url]
Sorry, England. You've got no business demanding terms when your stated intention is to do nothing else...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
[Url]http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE98B0EB20130912?irpc=932[/url]
Sorry, England. You've got no business demanding terms when your stated intention is to do nothing else...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
OHCHUTE 0
quade***He did some talking for sure...
If Syria turns over its chemical weapons, will you still see it as a failure even though no US blood or treasure was spent?
It's real easy. Had we taken Hitlers gas he used to kill millions yet let the guy get off then that too would have been a failure.
The world failed at getting Pol Pot.
Success is not in getting the guy to stop killing. Success is getting the guy who has committed mass murder. The focus should not be on the weapons but the person using the weapons to kill.
Stumpy 284
Thats OK then. I think this is being pushed by Scottish and Welsh factions 
Never try to eat more than you can lift
ndege 0
It's amazing the US still believes it has the right to go anywhere it choses and use force to impose its will. The arrogance is astounding.
rushmc 23
ndegeIt's amazing the US still believes it has the right to go anywhere it choses and use force to impose its will. The arrogance is astounding.
The US has freed more people than the rest of the world combined
Not that I totally disagree with you however
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteMy primary concern at this point is the international perspective on the US at this point.
Interesting. 10 years or so agaon, when that primary concern was raised the answer tended to be:
Fuck the rest of the world and what they think.
SkyDekkerQuoteMy primary concern at this point is the international perspective on the US at this point.
Interesting. 10 years or so agaon, when that primary concern was raised the answer tended to be:
Fuck the rest of the world and what they think.
A friend shared an idea with me -- the US should stand aside and just let France start a war with Syria. Now that would be funny.
Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.
Like I said, I know the nailing is important to you. Fine, get your hammer. I am more concerned about wars (specifically avoiding them.)
The way the US is seen in the future is indeed an issue. And as a result of this the world now sees the US as someone pretty eager to get involved in civil wars (which is bad) but who will back down if their 'target' agrees to negotiate (which is good.) The next time some tyrant considers gassing his people he'll be quicker to run to Putin (or Merkel, or Chavez, or Cameron, or whoever) when the US starts rattling its sword. Great; whatever gets them to the table.
I'd actually prefer we didn't rattle our sword so much, but I'd much rather have rattlers than imperialists running things.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites