jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (7 posts)

Syria - what are we actually talking about?

  1. innersmiff profile image72
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    What people think non-interventionists are saying: "Don't intervene in Syria because we are selfish hate the Syrian people"

    What they are actually saying: "Adding more violence to an already violent and ambiguous situation is not going to assist in the larger aim of peace in the region"

    Can we continue with the debate from there instead of 4th-grade level argumentation?

  2. innersmiff profile image72
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    Top 10 unproven claims for war against Syria.
    Dennis Kucinich

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-j- … 70763.html

    1. GA Anderson profile image80
      GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      In a display of supreme wit, the Curmudgeon would speculate that perhaps Mr. Kucinich was not invited to join Mr. Kerry in the closed-to-the-public "classified briefings" that seem to have persuaded some other lawmakers. Or perhaps they were really persuaded by being invited into the "Club."

      But to answer at a 4th grade level - shouldn't it all boil down to the question of why the U.S. should be the only nation contemplating taking action - even if Assad did do it?

      My opinion is that whether he did or did not do it is irrelevant to our, (U.S.), decision to get involved. Shouldn't the real determinant be national security implications?

      The very fact that only a punitive strike is planned - seems to prove to me that we should not do it. Do we really want to be the world's "spanker?"


      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I believe you have answered your question.  It lies in the field of morality; people are being hurt, and as we are the most moral people in the world it is up to us to enforce those morals.  Human rights (as defined and practiced in the US) must be upheld worldwide, by force as necessary, and hang what other countries think or want.  The good of the US is irrelevant.

        And yes, we are the worlds disciplinarian, and have been for many years. 

        Rather sad, isn't it?  How we ever got to that position (we are the most righteous in the world) I'll never know.

      2. innersmiff profile image72
        innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Well yes, if violence is to be justified at all, it has to be justified as an act of self-defense. What war is in this scenario is finding out that a neighbour is hitting his wife, and then bombarding the house with grenades.

  3. Reality Bytes profile image81
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    10 Chemical Weapons Attacks Washington Doesn't Want You to Talk About

    Washington doesn't merely lack the legal authority for a military intervention in Syria. It lacks the moral authority. We're talking about a government with a history of using chemical weapons against innocent people far more prolific and deadly than the mere accusations Assad faces from a trigger-happy Western military-industrial complex, bent on stifling further investigation before striking.

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/62023 … talk-about

    Syrians are killing Syrians, so we should kill Syrians to save the Syrians from Syrians?

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Nice link.

      Tear gas is a chemical weapon of war?  The A bomb is, too?  And aerial bombardments of Fallujah left thousands of tons of depleted Uranium that has caused 50% of new births to be deformed?

      Where do people get such ideas is beyond me.