RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria

RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/28/2013 6:58:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: IMO, Assad needs ousted more than Qaddafi (or however it's spelled) did. How is this statement supported by "what I support:"? What conservative interpretation of the cobstitution calls on us to change the government of another soverign nation? How does involving ourselves in the mid-east contribute to a limited government? _____________________________ What I support: A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution Personal Responsibility Help for the truly needy Limited Government Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt) "Assad needs ousted more than Qaddafi did." At what point did I state that the US needs to do the ousting? Oh, that's right, I didn't. Did Qaddafi need to be ousted? I'm not so sure he did, to be honest with you. His use of his Air Force was a bit overwhelming, but once we had the no-fly zone enforced, it was grounded. Further action was no longer anything about the no-fly zone, but was support for the rebels. I was against our involvement of the no-fly zone based on Obama never getting Congressional approval. I think Assad has shown himself to be more brutal than Qaddafi (perhaps not the Q of old, but the kinder, gentler Q he was in more recent times), leading to his needing to be ousted. In the end, however, at no point in time did I say that WE need to do the ousting. I also think that Kim Jong Un's regime needs ousted. I'm sure there are plenty more that fall into that category, too. But, I'm all for the subjects taking care of their own ruler(s).

DesideriScuri -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/28/2013 7:00:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: One of the given reasons for going into Iraq to depose Hussein was that he gassed his own citizens. IMO, that's worse than gassing an enemy combatant. Are they any more or less dead? quote: I think he gassed his own partly to experiment, but that subject selection was politically done. Wouldn't any other course of action be a wast of resources? You see no difference in killing a war foe and killing a civilian citizen?!? Edited to fix a format error.

thompsonx -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/28/2013 9:40:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: IMO, Assad needs ousted more than Qaddafi (or however it's spelled) did. How is this statement supported by "what I support:"? What conservative interpretation of the cobstitution calls on us to change the government of another soverign nation? How does involving ourselves in the mid-east contribute to a limited government? _____________________________ What I support: A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution Personal Responsibility Help for the truly needy Limited Government Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt) "Assad needs ousted more than Qaddafi did." At what point did I state that the US needs to do the ousting? Oh, that's right, I didn't. That is called "weaseling". You said he needed to be ousted. You say you believe in a literal interpretation of the constitution. Where in the constitution is there a provision for your desires? quote: Did Qaddafi need to be ousted? I'm not so sure he did, to be honest with you. "Assad needs ousted more than Qaddafi did." Please make up your mind. quote: His use of his Air Force was a bit overwhelming, but once we had the no-fly zone enforced, it was grounded. Further action was no longer anything about the no-fly zone, but was support for the rebels. I was against our involvement of the no-fly zone based on Obama never getting Congressional approval. Please make up your mind? quote: I think Assad has shown himself to be more brutal than Qaddafi Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with who and what quadaffi was instead of relying on the opinions of his enemies? quote: (perhaps not the Q of old, but the kinder, gentler Q he was in more recent times), leading to his needing to be ousted. Who the fuck gave you authority to say who should be in power? Why is syria any of our business? quote: In the end, however, at no point in time did I say that WE need to do the ousting. Well who the fuck do you want to do the deed? quote: I also think that Kim Jong Un's regime needs ousted. Why? Why the fuck is it any of our business? quote: I'm sure there are plenty more that fall into that category, too. But, I'm all for the subjects taking care of their own ruler(s). It would appear by that statement that you favor castro,lennin,trotsky,stalin and mao. Since they were the subjects who overthrew opressive regimes.

thompsonx -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/28/2013 9:46:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: One of the given reasons for going into Iraq to depose Hussein was that he gassed his own citizens. IMO, that's worse than gassing an enemy combatant. Are they any more or less dead? quote: I think he gassed his own partly to experiment, but that subject selection was politically done. Wouldn't any other course of action be a wast of resources? You see no difference in killing a war foe and killing a civilian citizen?!? Edited to fix a format error. My question was are they any more or less dead. I said nothing about the victims status. Why do you seek to create a question I did not ask?

kdsub -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/28/2013 10:51:44 AM)
quote: Butch, there is no evidence that this war would have ended already without US or Russian interference, much of the middle east is backing one side or the other. Remember... the rebels had Assad on the run... high ranking military officers were leaving the country... the Arab League was offering to negotiate...countries were offering Assad asylum...Then Russia sent the large weapons shipments and backed Assad unconditionally and he decided to stick it out and fight... So there is reasonable evidence that if the Russians had not sent weapons the civil war would have been over by now. This scenario is both probable and reasonable. Butch

DesideriScuri -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/28/2013 11:01:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: IMO, Assad needs ousted more than Qaddafi (or however it's spelled) did. How is this statement supported by "what I support:"? What conservative interpretation of the cobstitution calls on us to change the government of another soverign nation? How does involving ourselves in the mid-east contribute to a limited government? _____________________________ What I support: A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution Personal Responsibility Help for the truly needy Limited Government Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt) "Assad needs ousted more than Qaddafi did." At what point did I state that the US needs to do the ousting? Oh, that's right, I didn't. That is called "weaseling". You said he needed to be ousted. You say you believe in a literal interpretation of the constitution. Where in the constitution is there a provision for your desires? quote: Did Qaddafi need to be ousted? I'm not so sure he did, to be honest with you. "Assad needs ousted more than Qaddafi did." Please make up your mind. quote: His use of his Air Force was a bit overwhelming, but once we had the no-fly zone enforced, it was grounded. Further action was no longer anything about the no-fly zone, but was support for the rebels. I was against our involvement of the no-fly zone based on Obama never getting Congressional approval. Please make up your mind? quote: I think Assad has shown himself to be more brutal than Qaddafi Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with who and what quadaffi was instead of relying on the opinions of his enemies? quote: (perhaps not the Q of old, but the kinder, gentler Q he was in more recent times), leading to his needing to be ousted. Who the fuck gave you authority to say who should be in power? Why is syria any of our business? quote: In the end, however, at no point in time did I say that WE need to do the ousting. Well who the fuck do you want to do the deed? quote: I also think that Kim Jong Un's regime needs ousted. Why? Why the fuck is it any of our business? quote: I'm sure there are plenty more that fall into that category, too. But, I'm all for the subjects taking care of their own ruler(s). It would appear by that statement that you favor castro,lennin,trotsky,stalin and mao. Since they were the subjects who overthrew opressive regimes. According to you, I am not allowed to have any opinions. Well, sorry for you, that's not going to happen. I can think whoever needs to be ousted that I want. In case you missed it, the last sentence in the post you decided to respond to and selectively quote is: quote: But, I'm all for the subjects taking care of their own ruler(s).

DesideriScuri -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/28/2013 11:07:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: One of the given reasons for going into Iraq to depose Hussein was that he gassed his own citizens. IMO, that's worse than gassing an enemy combatant. Are they any more or less dead? quote: I think he gassed his own partly to experiment, but that subject selection was politically done. Wouldn't any other course of action be a wast of resources? You see no difference in killing a war foe and killing a civilian citizen?!? Edited to fix a format error. My question was are they any more or less dead. I said nothing about the victims status. Why do you seek to create a question I did not ask? Efficiency is not based on the type of victim. Your question was ridiculous and not at all aligned with the topic.

thompsonx -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/28/2013 11:25:17 AM)
quote: According to you, I am not allowed to have any opinions. Well, sorry for you, that's not going to happen. I am simply pointing out that your opinions are not alligned with your stated values. This is america and you are allowed to be as inconsistant as you choose.

thompsonx -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/28/2013 11:28:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: One of the given reasons for going into Iraq to depose Hussein was that he gassed his own citizens. IMO, that's worse than gassing an enemy combatant. Are they any more or less dead? quote: I think he gassed his own partly to experiment, but that subject selection was politically done. Wouldn't any other course of action be a wast of resources? You see no difference in killing a war foe and killing a civilian citizen?!? Edited to fix a format error. My question was are they any more or less dead. I said nothing about the victims status. Why do you seek to create a question I did not ask? quote: Efficiency is not based on the type of victim. I am glad you finally agree. quote: Your question was ridiculous and not at all aligned with the topic. My question was what difference is there between two dead people one by gas and the other by napalm...is one less dead than the other?['/b]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/28/2013 11:29:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: According to you, I am not allowed to have any opinions. Well, sorry for you, that's not going to happen. I am simply pointing out that your opinions are not alligned with your stated values. This is america and you are allowed to be as inconsistant as you choose. My stated values have not been crossed. What I think should happen, or needs to happen, isn't necessarily what I think our Nation should do. At no point in time did I state that the US should take down anyone. I even stated that the people of other nations should do these things for themselves. That sure aligns with the Constitution, doesn't it? You have pointed out two things: 1. Jack. 2. Shit.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/28/2013 11:52:16 AM)
~FR~ Is there a reason that the region cannot handle their own problems? I know many people may die but how long can the top countries in the world continue to babysit other countries? It has been shown throughout history that external intervention very rarely, if ever, solves the issues that led to it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/28/2013 12:03:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf ~FR~ Is there a reason that the region cannot handle their own problems? I know many people may die but how long can the top countries in the world continue to babysit other countries? It has been shown throughout history that external intervention very rarely, if ever, solves the issues that led to it. This is precisely what I'd prefer to see happen. Unfortunately, President Obama has already drawn a line in the sand. If he backs down, the US loses face in the international community. If Assad did use the chemical weapons and we back down, we will have lost face to Putin and Assad. Of course, if we do nothing and many more people are killed, and we'll be blamed for not going in. I would love to see Obama on TV state this emphatically (and I'm sure there are certain posters here that will jump on me for part of it): "The US has a new foreign policy. As long as you leave Israel alone, we're going to stay out of things and let each of your Nations and peoples decide how you want your Nations to run. Have a good day."

vincentML -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/28/2013 5:23:14 PM)
quote: This is precisely what I'd prefer to see happen. Unfortunately, President Obama has already drawn a line in the sand. If he backs down, the US loses face in the international community. If Assad did use the chemical weapons and we back down, we will have lost face to Putin and Assad. Of course, if we do nothing and many more people are killed, and we'll be blamed for not going in. We are a nation powerful enough to lose "face" now and then. Weaklings worry about such nonsense. It is crap war propaganda to say we have to commit to battle to maintain our honor. What will happen to America if we choose to step aside? Will our military might weaken? Will our economy suffer? Will we by smighted by the gods? Will we be attacked by Costa Rica? I think not. We should not give in to the old tried and tested war whoops.

PeonForHer -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/28/2013 5:37:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML What will happen to America if we choose to step aside? Will our military might weaken? Will our economy suffer? Will we by smighted by the gods? Will we be attacked by Costa Rica? No, but you might get smitten by Al Quaeda, who are purportedly allies of the Syrian rebels and who could have sarin bombs in their hands (if the Assad regime is telling the truth); or by the Iranians, who are allies of the Assad regime (if the Syrian rebels are telling the truth). The bottom line is that these chemical weapons exist in a situation that is seriously out of control. That is what needs to be dealt with. Somehow.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/28/2013 7:06:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: This is precisely what I'd prefer to see happen. Unfortunately, President Obama has already drawn a line in the sand. If he backs down, the US loses face in the international community. If Assad did use the chemical weapons and we back down, we will have lost face to Putin and Assad. Of course, if we do nothing and many more people are killed, and we'll be blamed for not going in. We are a nation powerful enough to lose "face" now and then. Weaklings worry about such nonsense. It is crap war propaganda to say we have to commit to battle to maintain our honor. What will happen to America if we choose to step aside? Will our military might weaken? Will our economy suffer? Will we by smighted by the gods? Will we be attacked by Costa Rica? I think not. We should not give in to the old tried and tested war whoops. Me: "This is precisely what I'd prefer to see happen." Now, wtf was it I'd prefer to see happen? Oh, that's right. I was saying I'd prefer to see "the region ... handle their own problems." Strikes me as a pretty fucking lame "war whoop," eh?

tweakabelle -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/29/2013 1:17:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML What will happen to America if we choose to step aside? Will our military might weaken? Will our economy suffer? Will we by smighted by the gods? Will we be attacked by Costa Rica? No, but you might get smitten by Al Quaeda, who are purportedly allies of the Syrian rebels and who could have sarin bombs in their hands (if the Assad regime is telling the truth); or by the Iranians, who are allies of the Assad regime (if the Syrian rebels are telling the truth). The bottom line is that these chemical weapons exist in a situation that is seriously out of control. That is what needs to be dealt with. Somehow. Yes. Somehow. The problem is the "how". And the "who". As all the major Western countries have already declared their support for the rebels, they have effectively ruled unilateral action out, if the goal of that action is to "punish" the guilty parties for using chemical weapons. Unilateral Western intervention will correctly be interpreted as action to support the rebels and will have incalculable consequences. That leaves the UN as the only credible body where action can be initiated. And the small matter of Russian and Chinese vetoes to be overcome. If Americans feel frustrated by UN vetoes, they can ponder that this is the way the rest of the world feels whenever the US exercises its veto to protect its proxy Israel from the wrath of the world for its innumerable war crimes. Action is needed to send a clear message to the world that chemical weapons are totally unacceptable in today's world. It must come from the UN.

PeonForHer -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/29/2013 2:37:07 AM)
quote: Yes. Somehow. The problem is the "how". And the "who". God knows. I think we can all agree that this situation is not neat.

Politesub53 -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/29/2013 3:34:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: Butch, there is no evidence that this war would have ended already without US or Russian interference, much of the middle east is backing one side or the other. Remember... the rebels had Assad on the run... high ranking military officers were leaving the country... the Arab League was offering to negotiate...countries were offering Assad asylum...Then Russia sent the large weapons shipments and backed Assad unconditionally and he decided to stick it out and fight... So there is reasonable evidence that if the Russians had not sent weapons the civil war would have been over by now. This scenario is both probable and reasonable. Butch No it isnt, its just your assumption. Think back to Lebanon.

Politesub53 -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/29/2013 3:40:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf ~FR~ Is there a reason that the region cannot handle their own problems? I know many people may die but how long can the top countries in the world continue to babysit other countries? It has been shown throughout history that external intervention very rarely, if ever, solves the issues that led to it. This view seems a bit myopic to me, Blair and Clinton did exactly that in the Balkans.

Politesub53 -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/29/2013 3:45:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML We are a nation powerful enough to lose "face" now and then. Weaklings worry about such nonsense. It is crap war propaganda to say we have to commit to battle to maintain our honor. What will happen to America if we choose to step aside? Will our military might weaken? Will our economy suffer? Will we by smighted by the gods? Will we be attacked by Costa Rica? I think not. We should not give in to the old tried and tested war whoops. What will happen is this...... Sooner or later you would then have to get involved in the defence of Israel. That would cost more, in both finance and lives, than getting involved now.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875