The following replies are approved. To see additional replies that are pending approval, click Show Pending. Warning: These may contain graphic material.
18
How about "do you not like genocide"? See Rwanda for context. Not doing anything there was a disaster.
31
What's so crazy about Obama apologists is that they all started as progressive liberals in 2008 and by 2013 they've become surveillence- and war-hungry hardline conservatives. They're like barnacles who mindlessly attached themselves a ship that has steered itself into dark dark waters.
7
Strawman much? We can discuss the actual events without them. I supported intervention in Rwanda under CLINTON, by the way. Again, see Rwanda for context.
9
I suppose then we should go to war with every country in the world where people are dying (and then kill more of them), to suit our own interests (which we don't even know what they, are since there is no real government transparency) while framing it as a moral issue in order to convince the public it's because we are DEMOCRACY WARRIORS!
5
What I find crazy is how easily people ignore actual reality and make up a narrative that suits their world-view. This is nothing like Iraq, and much more analogous to the intervention in the Balkans during the Clinton years. Even more, it is an action that has the support of the Arab League. As I said in another comment, you can agree or disagree with the need for intervention when Syria has broken international law by using chemical weapons against its own civilians, but you can't just make sh*t up and pretend it's Iraq II.
5
Congress should vote on this one, at least. That way we are either all in or not involved at all. But in my personal opinion the use of chemical weapons should be punished by the whole world, working together. There is absolutely no reason to be blase about their use. If it is seen as acceptable conventional wars will get alot worse than they already are. This is not to say that regular bombs aren't just as bad to the people who are killed by them, just that if we, as a country, say, "meh, CW, who cares" that is not a good precedent. Ultimately Russia and China should care just as much, but they don't. Someone has to say "NO".
The problem seems to be.. who should be punished and how? I've read reports that the rebels also have access to chemical weapons that were found/seized and also may have used them. As Assad regime weakens and loses territory, more of these weapons are going to fall in the hands of "rebels" which include hundreds of groups including Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
I don't personally believe that Kerry and Obama are lying about this particular intelligence. But that's up to everyone to decide for themselves. Hence, our elected legislators should vote on it. Punishment is largely symbolic, except for the people killed in the cruise missile attacks, of course, some, or many, of whom will be innocent bystanders.
Oh absolutely, this should go before Congress. UK Parliament already shot down Cameron's plan for intervention.
The constitution gives congress the power to make war. If they don't vote for it, it shouldn't happen regardless of right or wrong.
7
It's not about "liking" War. I think this potential action is very questionable but can we discuss this like adults and not simpletons.
If bombing Syria was something that we "wanted" we could have done it a year ago.
5
I don't see how Obama is painted as eager to do this, when he has been getting pressured to get involved since day one.
1
Another great question is "why don't we just give humanitarian aid?" Um, we have been.
Assad/Gov forces have been making gains recently against the rebels. Chemical weapon use gives us a good excuse to do some air strikes from a safe distance and weaken them a little bit so the rebels can make back some ground. A perpetual stalemate and ongoing civil war is in the US interest as it weakens Iranian/Russian/Chinese influence in the region, redirects resources away from planned attacks against us and our allies, and if no side is winning, it avoids religious extremists gaining power. /conspiracy theory
1
Noam? Is that you?
Yeah, that actually sounds like a viable scenario- pretty much what I have been led to believe...
6
War? Huh.
6
Good God..
6
Y'all.
5
What was that good for?
6
Absolutely nothin'.
