09-20-2013 05:13 PM
368 12345 ...
tools
  1. msndrstood's Avatar
    That's your rebuttal?
    Can you explain that to the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dead and maimed bomb victims over the past hundred years?

    Do what do you want us to do?

    Sent via Note II
    08-29-2013 05:13 PM
  2. JHBThree's Avatar
    Bombs have obliterated whole cities. Please see WWI, WWII, etc etc

    Not the kinds of bombs these people have access to.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    msndrstood and Fairclough like this.
    08-29-2013 05:27 PM
  3. JHBThree's Avatar
    That's your rebuttal?
    Can you explain that to the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dead and maimed bomb victims over the past hundred years?

    You're talking about a different kind of bombs than are actually being used. A bomb is a bomb. A mortar or artillery shell is something completely different.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    msndrstood and Fairclough like this.
    08-29-2013 05:28 PM
  4. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    So we shouldn't have intervened in WWII?

    What do you think we should do?

    And, chemical weapons were banned after WWI, and renewed 15 years ago. As if a moral high ground isn't enough.

    http://www.opcw.org/news-publication...s-and-figures/
    Things have changed. The US is not the only big boy on the block. Aside from chemical weapons, nuclear options by some of these countries should be feared. Russia has them. No one knows for sure what other middle eastern countries have them. No one is taking into account how Israel is going to respond. Everyone over there hates them if one of those countries hits Israel, then you will have a mess.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    08-29-2013 05:30 PM
  5. llamabreath's Avatar
    What do you want us to do?

    Sent via Note II
    Don't know (that's why I've never been a candidate for President).

    But I do know this -
    The President of the United States can never make a threat in the name of goodness that he can't or won't keep.

    Punting the ball, after drawing a red line is failure on a major level.

    Even for those that think we shouldn't get involved; we're already involved by default. The default is we claim to be the greatest, most sane, most honorable, most helpful, etc etc etc. Even if Obama hadn't made the threat to take action if it was true about the gassing, we would still be expected to.

    But regardless, he can't punt this one.

    They even train school bus drivers NOT to make threats to rowdy children that they cannot or will not keep. Just out of the pure psychology of it.

    08-29-2013 05:33 PM
  6. msndrstood's Avatar
    Well, it all may be a moot point if Congress votes on it. The House Republicans will vote it down just to embarrass Obama.

    Mark my words.

    Sent via Note II
    08-29-2013 05:47 PM
  7. JHBThree's Avatar
    Don't know (that's why I've never been a candidate for President).

    But I do know this -
    The President of the United States can never make a threat in the name of goodness that he can't or won't keep.

    Punting the ball, after drawing a red line is failure on a major level.

    Even for those that think we shouldn't get involved; we're already involved by default. The default is we claim to be the greatest, most sane, most honorable, most helpful, etc etc etc. Even if Obama hadn't made the threat to take action if it was true about the gassing, we would still be expected to.

    But regardless, he can't punt this one.

    They even train school bus drivers NOT to make threats to rowdy children that they cannot or will not keep. Just out of the pure psychology of it.

    There will be a missile attack of some sort. It is not a matter of if (given some of the evidence leaked today), but when.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    08-29-2013 05:48 PM
  8. llamabreath's Avatar
    There will be a missile attack of some sort. It is not a matter of if (given some of the evidence leaked today), but when.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    We might as well tell them the exact time and what empty facilities will be hit, since we've already dragged our feet for this long.

    08-29-2013 05:52 PM
  9. msndrstood's Avatar
    Danny are you conflicted today? I'm having trouble following where you're coming from today.

    Sent via Note II
    Aquila and Fairclough like this.
    08-29-2013 06:00 PM
  10. llamabreath's Avatar
    Danny are you conflicted today? I'm having trouble following where you're coming from today.

    Sent via Note II
    I like to argue the points from each of my personalities.

    Aquila likes this.
    08-29-2013 06:02 PM
  11. msndrstood's Avatar
    I like to argue the points from each of my personalities.

    You're doing a damn fine job of it too.

    Syria-uploadfromtaptalk1377817619606.jpg

    Sent via Note II
    Fairclough likes this.
    08-29-2013 06:07 PM
  12. llamabreath's Avatar
    You're talking about a different kind of bombs than are actually being used. A bomb is a bomb. A mortar or artillery shell is something completely different.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    I implied anything on the table, which includes any type of bomb, mortar or shell you can possibly think of.

    Here is what I said -
    "How come the world's ears perk up when it hears 'chemicals', but every other horror and devastation is just routine thinning of the herd?"


    08-29-2013 06:12 PM
  13. msndrstood's Avatar
    Deb said "simple bombs".
    I implied anything on the table, which includes bombs.

    Here is what I said -
    "How come the world's ears perk up when it hears 'chemicals', but every other horror and devastation is just routine thinning of the herd?"


    That was JB that said simple bombs.

    You were listening with the wrong personality.

    Sent via Note II
    Aquila likes this.
    08-29-2013 06:26 PM
  14. llamabreath's Avatar
    That was JB that said simple bombs.

    You were listening with the wrong personality.

    Sent via Note II
    Yeah, i just noticed that over the last few minutes and edited.

    Refresh the page, you'll see.

    Aquila and msndrstood like this.
    08-29-2013 06:29 PM
  15. JHBThree's Avatar
    I implied anything on the table, which includes any type of bomb, mortar or shell you can possibly think of.

    Here is what I said -
    "How come the world's ears perk up when it hears 'chemicals', but every other horror and devastation is just routine thinning of the herd?"


    You specifically mentioned suicide bombings and ieds. Even if you had meant to include what the Syrian army was doing before they used chemical weapons, the fact is that the world has been paying close attention to the use of artillery against civilians.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    08-29-2013 06:34 PM
  16. llamabreath's Avatar
    You specifically mentioned suicide bombings and ieds. Even if you had meant to include what the Syrian army was doing before they used chemical weapons, the fact is that the world has been paying close attention to the use of artillery against civilians.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    "... paying close attention... "

    Yeah uh... the world has paid close attention to other genocides too... been real successful at preventing them or squashing them ...

    08-29-2013 06:39 PM
  17. JHBThree's Avatar
    "... paying close attention... "

    Yeah uh... the world has paid close attention to other genocides too... been real successful at preventing them...

    Okay now you're conflating two very different things. The situation in Syria is a civil war. The international community is loathe to intervene in a civil war, unless a line is crossed. (Like chemical weapons)

    Similarly, the most recent genocides were ones that could not have been stopped without significant loss of innocent life. Instead of providing military support, the international community provided monetary and supply relief for refugees. There was also some very limited intervention by UN forces, but only to protect refugees and not to attack the oppressors.

    Geopolitics these days is a very messy business.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    Fairclough and msndrstood like this.
    08-29-2013 06:59 PM
  18. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    "... paying close attention... "

    Yeah uh... the world has paid close attention to other genocides too... been real successful at preventing them...

    Exactly...look at everything that's been going on in africa for years. Never even thought about intervening there. Can anyone name a country we have helped that doesn't have oil or some benefit to the US?

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    08-29-2013 07:00 PM
  19. JHBThree's Avatar
    Exactly...look at everything that's been going on in africa for years. Never even thought about intervening there. Can anyone name a country we have helped that doesn't have oil or some benefit to the US?

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    There was hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to those countries, if not more.

    Also, Egypt is a perfect example. No benefit to the US in any way, but we continued to help financially because Egypt's stability is important for the middle east.
    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    msndrstood likes this.
    08-29-2013 07:26 PM
  20. llamabreath's Avatar
    The international community is loathe to intervene in a civil war, unless a line is crossed. (Like chemical weapons).
    Which takes us back around to my original question (still waiting for a good answer),

    Why are chemicals the line? Why not the genocide itself?



    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    08-29-2013 07:29 PM
  21. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    There was hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to those countries, if not more.

    Also, Egypt is a perfect example. No benefit to the US in any way, but we continued to help financially because Egypt's stability is important for the middle east.
    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    Ok...we send aid to middle eastern countries as well. Again...there is oil in the region. Thats why they want stability.No stability =bad for business here. How stable do you think that region will be with bombings going on? Thats only going to put more countries in the mix.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    08-29-2013 07:45 PM
  22. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Which takes us back around to my original question (still waiting for a good answer),

    Why are chemicals the line? Why not the genocide itself?



    Politicians often draw lines in the SAND because they can be erased and redrawn.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    08-29-2013 07:53 PM
  23. JHBThree's Avatar
    Which takes us back around to my original question (still waiting for a good answer),

    Why are chemicals the line? Why not the genocide itself?



    Again, you need to separate out the events that are occurring. The genocides over the last couple years were distinct events from what is going on in Syria. You cannot, and should not, discuss them in the same breath.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    08-29-2013 07:57 PM
  24. Fairclough's Avatar
    They will argue and bicker while Syrian cities burn and more children die. Have you watched the video of those children dying? I have, and wish I hadn't. It's viscerally uncomfortable to watch.
    We watched the Germans decimate the Jews, we watched the Rwandan massacres, if we don't stand up for humanity, who will?
    We assumed that mantle a long time ago. It's kind of hard to sit back and do nothing, if you have any empathy for those that don't have a choice in this situation like the children who died a horrible death just because they belonged the wrong religious sect.
    Exactly Cameron's statement! He told the parliament, those who voted no go watch the video's of children dying. I guess his unfortunate to have parliament who lacks a backbone. Lets not forget the armenian genocide... hilter is quoted saying no one remembers that. Half the citizens were killed in a week, HALF!

    Do we really trust one man with that much power? Would you trust rand Paul knowing how you feel about him? Heck, I like him, but even I don't want him to have that much power.
    From what I have seen from the US, I would trust that 1 man more than the rest. Sometimes members lack the back bone - because they don't want to loose their seat instead of putting it on the line for the children which are be slaughtered.

    We don't know what proof we have. We just know that hundreds of children are dead from some form of gas. I think we should wait until the proof is laid out for the American public before we condemn a decision before its made.


    Sent via Note II
    The UN report is apparently set to be released at the end of the week, everyone's just waiting for the green light. I actually wonder if our super hornett's will be going, it has already be eluded too that we're wanting to go to Syria.

    Even the state department has no proof that the government did it. There is no case for it. Again, our government has no hard proof. We strike and we support Al Quads.
    Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4
    You don't strike kids and another gassing goes a head. I think there is substantial evidence, which is expected to be released at the end of the week.


    Not surprising. The British want the US to do it for them.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    The Prime Minister does, just unfortunately his peers lack a back bone.


    Things have changed. The US is not the only big boy on the block. Aside from chemical weapons, nuclear options by some of these countries should be feared. Russia has them. No one knows for sure what other middle eastern countries have them. No one is taking into account how Israel is going to respond. Everyone over there hates them if one of those countries hits Israel, then you will have a mess.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    I don't think US had every been the big boy by themselves, WWII, There was Germany, US, Russia & British... now there is China. Common misconception, China is actually relatively keen for peace. We have visits there on a diplomatic scale there monthly. With the Korea crisis, their leader swore to ours he will talk them down.

    There was hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to those countries, if not more.

    Also, Egypt is a perfect example. No benefit to the US in any way, but we continued to help financially because Egypt's stability is important for the middle east.
    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    Try Billions of Dollars on aid, most of this is not even accounted for in monetary terms. E.g Even though we matched the US donations for 2004 Tsunami, (corporate level was 8x our donation though with 16x the residents) many of the donations are actual objects - I believe the States did the same with the recent Japanese Crisis, with the deployment on military and emergency worked who bring their equipment with them. One example, since PNG's release from Australia - we have a military presence even though in the political level our leaders don't get a long (Their prime minister had a cry about being searched in our airports and he charged his deputy with child sex charges) on the ground level our troops are loved their for attempting to create stability and often playing soccer with the children, I remember on the news seeing soldiers actually being glad to be deployed their to check up on how its going.

    I actually Agree, stability is good for all nations even if its not in direct benefit. Look the Syria crissis besides the obvious outrages, wiped hundreds of millions on the stock market, atleast over here not sure about where you guys are.
    msndrstood likes this.
    08-29-2013 08:01 PM
  25. JHBThree's Avatar
    Ok...we send aid to middle eastern countries as well. Again...there is oil in the region. Thats why they want stability.No stability =bad for business here. How stable do you think that region will be with bombings going on? Thats only going to put more countries in the mix.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    I don't think you quite understand the geopolitics. There needs to be stability in the region because at least three nations have nuclear weapons, one of which has had serious issues with warring factions and stability. The US is more concerned about the detonation of nuclear weapons in the region than they are oil. (The nations with the largest supplies of oil are stable) The fact that the US supplies soldiers to protect Pakistani nuclear arms speaks volumes for their concerns.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    08-29-2013 08:02 PM
368 12345 ...
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD