Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
94 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
we can not tolerate these killings (Original Post) KG Sep 2013 OP
Don't worry, Syria KG Sep 2013 #1
Not even that. We don't have a favorite side NightWatcher Sep 2013 #12
Yea we do have an objective Cryptoad Sep 2013 #15
We don't want to take out the chemicals. They said that's not a target NightWatcher Sep 2013 #18
you can't do that without a full invasion .... Cryptoad Sep 2013 #21
The US has tortured kids too. nt ZombieHorde Sep 2013 #29
When did the US Navy gas kids? nt Cryptoad Sep 2013 #37
Is there a preferred way to 'kill kids'? sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #68
NO Cryptoad Sep 2013 #79
We are arguing over whether killing kids with White Phosphorous is less murderous than killing them sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #84
Some members of the US military ass raped minors. ZombieHorde Sep 2013 #73
never said it was a terrible thing,,,, dont think it is SOP of our government. nt Cryptoad Sep 2013 #80
When you say US Cryptoad Sep 2013 #83
It happened during the torture scandal. nt ZombieHorde Sep 2013 #85
That was not government policy, nt Cryptoad Sep 2013 #86
I think one thing the leaks have proven is ZombieHorde Sep 2013 #91
huh? /nt Cryptoad Sep 2013 #92
Have you been reviewing the leaks? ZombieHorde Sep 2013 #93
Yeap ,,,,, Cryptoad Sep 2013 #94
maybe you should take a cold shower BOG PERSON Sep 2013 #32
Um, and you have proof that Assad's forces did this? Fantastic Anarchist Sep 2013 #76
Seems pretty much most of the world says Cryptoad Sep 2013 #78
People saying stuff doesn't count as proof. Fantastic Anarchist Sep 2013 #82
How'd that decapitation strike work out against Saddam? Oh yeah, cost 6 trillion dollars. grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #35
You are confusing Cryptoad Sep 2013 #36
No, you are. grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #52
You saying its so Cryptoad Sep 2013 #54
Removal of Assad and regime change has been explicitly ruled out as objective Celefin Sep 2013 #40
declaring regime change is the not the objective Cryptoad Sep 2013 #41
Your post #15: Yea we do have an objective Celefin Sep 2013 #43
His regime must stay Cryptoad Sep 2013 #46
Now this doesn't even make sense Celefin Sep 2013 #47
I have stated on numerous post Cryptoad Sep 2013 #51
Bull MNBrewer Sep 2013 #70
I would love to hear your reasoning Cryptoad Sep 2013 #72
Justice Drones... followed shortly thereafter by Freedom Shrapnel. MNBrewer Sep 2013 #63
Do you think a society can exist without Justice? Cryptoad Sep 2013 #65
Who is Barack Obama to mete out "Justice" to Bashar al Assad? MNBrewer Sep 2013 #69
pretty hard stretch Cryptoad Sep 2013 #77
Chicken Hawk Squawk whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #60
Becasue you disagree with my post Cryptoad Sep 2013 #61
"Squawk!" whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #62
George Bush? I don't support the DP, but you are correct, anyone who drops bombs, cluster bombs, sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #64
Sorry Cryptoad Sep 2013 #66
Well this 'other' ME country is on the list of the Bush War Criminals. They didn't have time to sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #67
Sorry,,, Cryptoad Sep 2013 #71
Do you know who the guy is? Fantastic Anarchist Sep 2013 #75
There is a concept in law Cryptoad Sep 2013 #87
You have no idea what you are talking about. Fantastic Anarchist Sep 2013 #88
To the contare,,,,, Cryptoad Sep 2013 #89
Poor little Syria Cryptoad Sep 2013 #14
And to think... Oilwellian Sep 2013 #25
Please Cryptoad Sep 2013 #50
Actually the US doesn't want Assad to disappear. We're not aiming for regime change. Scootaloo Sep 2013 #26
Didn't President Obama say he had no intention of harming Assad? nt ZombieHorde Sep 2013 #27
you said it Cryptoad Sep 2013 #38
Jup; links. Celefin Sep 2013 #42
i will repeat once again Cryptoad Sep 2013 #49
The Assad regime is not the Assad regime when you remove Assad Celefin Sep 2013 #57
YOu still dont get what i am saying Cryptoad Sep 2013 #58
DURec leftstreet Sep 2013 #2
Yeah but, we are killing on the side of righteousness. nm rhett o rick Sep 2013 #3
a cartoonish view indeed. Try to understand the global ban on chemical weapons uhnope Sep 2013 #4
Try to understand that CRIMES should not be used as a CASUS BELLI.... Junkdrawer Sep 2013 #6
There is no global ban on chemical weapons. Inventing things does not help your case. AtheistCrusader Sep 2013 #7
Yes let's split hairs while Syria gases entire neighborhoods of civilians. uhnope Sep 2013 #30
Not materially different from bombing it flat. AtheistCrusader Sep 2013 #33
That's the part about this that troubles me the worst customerserviceguy Sep 2013 #8
Look deeply into my eyes...You're Forgetting Iraq.... Junkdrawer Sep 2013 #10
YOU have forgotten Iraq if you can post such a ridiculous message uhnope Sep 2013 #31
Explain how the situations are identical. CakeGrrl Sep 2013 #11
They both boil down to customerserviceguy Sep 2013 #20
look like ???????? nt Cryptoad Sep 2013 #17
Just switch the words "Bush" and "Obama" customerserviceguy Sep 2013 #22
Who is saying "Bush wrong, Obama right"??? We're saying: Chemical weapons use on civilians must be uhnope Sep 2013 #28
Just re-read from the post I responded to customerserviceguy Sep 2013 #34
Bush riffing on Iraq's chem weapons, which Iraq had used on civilians Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #55
We're going to baffle future historians.... Junkdrawer Sep 2013 #5
No historian here, BB1 Sep 2013 #13
Media unanimity cripples critical thought..... Junkdrawer Sep 2013 #16
But we'll only kill the bad guys, right? NaturalHigh Sep 2013 #9
Funny thats what Assad said Cryptoad Sep 2013 #19
Somehow, I don't think Assad's is an example that we should follow. NaturalHigh Sep 2013 #23
Yea no need for Cryptoad Sep 2013 #39
No-one is saying that. Celefin Sep 2013 #44
link me Cryptoad Sep 2013 #45
Well link me to the opposite Celefin Sep 2013 #48
Sorry that your post did not support your arguement Cryptoad Sep 2013 #53
That's alright, then we are both thinking the same of each other Celefin Sep 2013 #56
and a good day to you! Cryptoad Sep 2013 #59
K&R! DeSwiss Sep 2013 #24
So the U.S. doesn't have the right to do anything again? shenmue Sep 2013 #74
Wait. Which other countries keep starting wars in the Middle East? DirkGently Sep 2013 #81
Dead is dead and it stinks. lonestarnot Sep 2013 #90

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)
12. Not even that. We don't have a favorite side
Reply to KG (Reply #1)
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 09:58 PM
Sep 2013

We don't even have a goal or on objective in Syria. We'd just be shelling them as punishment.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
21. you can't do that without a full invasion ....
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 10:09 PM
Sep 2013

fly the drone up Assad's ass and any others that want to torture and gas kids!

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
68. Is there a preferred way to 'kill kids'?
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 11:50 AM
Sep 2013

I see we are now arguing over the 'right and acceptable way' to kill kids over the 'the wrong and unacceptable way' to kill kids?

Have we really sunk this low?

Do you know the names of any of the victims we are supposedly so 'concerned about'?

Anything about their lives at all, how old they were even? A name, something to demonstrate that they are not just 'statistics' as an excuse for more war?

I believe the UN and other humanitarian groups there DO have names. Shouldn't we be interested in knowing something about them?

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
84. We are arguing over whether killing kids with White Phosphorous is less murderous than killing them
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 05:54 PM
Sep 2013

with Chemical weapons.

IF we were arguing over how to lead a nation, we would be discussing the prosecution of our OWN WAR CRIMINALS who slaughtered over one million people after LYING this country into war. Then we lead the world to, not just the nation, on how to be CONSISTENT regarding WAR CRIMES. How to prosecute them in a court of law so that the WHOLE WORLD gets to see the evidence against them. And in doing so, a warning would go out to anyone else who thought we the US, would MOVE FORWARD from WAR CRIMES, would have another think coming to them.

But we are not doing that. We have moved forward from War Crimes and are now trying to convince the world that we CARE ABOUT THEM.

The World is not buying it.

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)
73. Some members of the US military ass raped minors.
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 01:08 PM
Sep 2013

Perhaps that is not really a terrible thing in your view, but for most of us, that is equivalent.

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)
93. Have you been reviewing the leaks?
Wed Sep 4, 2013, 06:55 PM
Sep 2013

The FBI teaching torture techniques to those in other countries was not known policy before the leaks. The extent of the spying on Americans wasn't known, though we did all know they were spying. Covering up the deaths of innocent civilians wasn't known policy. Etc., etc.

Fantastic Anarchist

(7,309 posts)
76. Um, and you have proof that Assad's forces did this?
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 01:50 PM
Sep 2013

Where were the WMDs? South, east, southeast, north and northwest somewhat?

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
78. Seems pretty much most of the world says
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 02:30 PM
Sep 2013

Assad did it. a few hold outs but we know who they are , if you know what i mean.

 

grahamhgreen

(15,741 posts)
35. How'd that decapitation strike work out against Saddam? Oh yeah, cost 6 trillion dollars.
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 04:21 AM
Sep 2013

And a lot of blood too.

Celefin

(532 posts)
40. Removal of Assad and regime change has been explicitly ruled out as objective
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 06:05 AM
Sep 2013

So no, that most certainly isn't the objective.
Taking out the chemical weapons isn't either as it can't be achieved this way.
Stopping the killing isn't either, as it won't and will probably only increase it.
'Punishment' is an incredibly stupid argument and almost certainly not the objective, though one might never know. Those 'punished' won't be the ones responsible for the CW use.

Here's a speculative thought on a possible objective:
Taking out Syrian air defenses and radar to give the Israeli airforce hassle-free airspace to strike if they were to deem it necessary.
That might be a viable military objective although it is, as I said, purely speculative.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
41. declaring regime change is the not the objective
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 06:17 AM
Sep 2013

does not mean that delivering justice for his crimes against humanity with a drone is not a option.

Celefin

(532 posts)
43. Your post #15: Yea we do have an objective
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 06:25 AM
Sep 2013

Your words, not Obama's.
We weren't talking options for delivering 'justice' (ignoring the crimes against humanity and need for justice is also an 'option', as is nuking Damascus); we were talking goals and objectives. Taking out Assad isn't the objective - and officially not even an option. We want the Assad regime to stay.

Celefin

(532 posts)
47. Now this doesn't even make sense
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 07:04 AM
Sep 2013

Still nothing from you on military objectives except putting words in Obama's/Kerry's mouth.
Oh well, carry on.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
51. I have stated on numerous post
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 09:21 AM
Sep 2013

what i think our objective should be

very narrow limited response like delivering Assad's retribution for his crimes against Humanity on drone up his ass. Then let them continue with their civil war.

There is a very old Liberal concept that Justice involves Retribution for Crimes of a heinous nature. .

No argument is valid for a liberal state without it!


Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
65. Do you think a society can exist without Justice?
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 11:34 AM
Sep 2013

Do you think Justice can be achieved without retribution.?

If you do I would love to hear about it.

Justice and Retributionism are very old Liberal concepts!

There is far more at stake here than next years elections.

MNBrewer

(8,462 posts)
69. Who is Barack Obama to mete out "Justice" to Bashar al Assad?
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 12:06 PM
Sep 2013

Do you think Justice is served by collateral damage?
Who is going to seek retribution on US for it?

OUR society seems to be happy to exist without justice or retribution for our OWN war criminals. Barack Obama just granted immunity to the war criminals from our most recent wars? Might that be because he seeks to establish a precedent for his successor regarding his OWN war crimes?

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
77. pretty hard stretch
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 02:27 PM
Sep 2013

to say accidental collateral damage in War is the same crime as torturing and gassing your own people.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
64. George Bush? I don't support the DP, but you are correct, anyone who drops bombs, cluster bombs,
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 11:29 AM
Sep 2013

White Phosphorous on innocents most definitely should not be roaming around free. Remember the children in Abut Ghraib who were sodomized in front of their mothers? Seymour Hersch found it hard to even verbalize when he first reported it.

So when do we start the investigations and the trials and remove those monsters from the streets because most of them are behind this latest invasion of another ME country.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
66. Sorry
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 11:42 AM
Sep 2013

Last edited Tue Sep 3, 2013, 12:15 PM - Edit history (1)

I must have missed the part were these heinous acts were a matter of official policy of our government. but I love to read them.

Sorry you may posted to the wrong thread. I have not called for an invasion of another ME Country.

insert "not"

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
67. Well this 'other' ME country is on the list of the Bush War Criminals. They didn't have time to
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 11:44 AM
Sep 2013

get to all seven countries they intended to invade.

Why are you supporting the US invading 'another ME country'? Did you support the US invading Iraq also?

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
71. Sorry,,,
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 12:18 PM
Sep 2013

I left out a "not",,,,, have edited my post.....
no I did support the invasion of Iraq nor do I support the invasion of Syria,,,just for the record
sorry about eh late edit

Fantastic Anarchist

(7,309 posts)
88. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Wed Sep 4, 2013, 07:34 AM
Sep 2013

I'm quite embarrassed for you.

The due diligence required would be to verify our facts, collect our evidence and then take appropriate action like filing a brief with the International Court.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
89. To the contare,,,,,
Wed Sep 4, 2013, 10:13 AM
Sep 2013

"due Diligence" is also defined as the care that a reasonable person exercises to avoid harm to other persons or their property .

Assad is guilty of not exercising that care to make sure the WMD's were not used.

Oilwellian

(12,647 posts)
25. And to think...
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 10:22 PM
Sep 2013

It wasn't too long ago when we renditioned prisoners to Syria for torture. Have you seen the pics of dead Iraqi children in Fallujah killed by white phosphorous? The hypocrisy is thick around here.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
50. Please
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 09:14 AM
Sep 2013

please furnish a link where our government intentionally tortured and gassed children. There aint none.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
26. Actually the US doesn't want Assad to disappear. We're not aiming for regime change.
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 10:24 PM
Sep 2013

But keep up with the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" cries in your crusade to kill more kids.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
49. i will repeat once again
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 09:12 AM
Sep 2013

"no intent of regime changes" does not mean the same thing as Assad will not be harmed.

all your link only mention regime change nothing about he latter .

words have meanings albeit at times, ambiguous.

Celefin

(532 posts)
57. The Assad regime is not the Assad regime when you remove Assad
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 10:03 AM
Sep 2013

Fairly obvious, I would think. You asked for links, I provided them.
When you remove a strongman with absolute control you can be absolutely certain that there will be no smooth transition of power. Remove the head of the regime = shatter the regime.
Could you show me an example that proves the opposite? If so, please do.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
58. YOu still dont get what i am saying
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 10:13 AM
Sep 2013

I am not interested in fighting in their civil war, or any smooooooth transition of power. I am interested in delivering Assad's retribution for his Crimes against Humanity, period. After that is delivered , they can go back to fighting their civil war, all the time knowing that if they commit crimes against humanity , they will pay the Price of Retribution, quickly!

The Concept of Retribution as a integral part of Justice is a very old Liberal Idea. And the Argument can be made that there can no be any liberal state without it!

 

uhnope

(6,419 posts)
4. a cartoonish view indeed. Try to understand the global ban on chemical weapons
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 09:34 PM
Sep 2013

which most politically aware adults know about. Try to understand that because Bush was a war criminal in Iraq doesn't mean that all use of military force is going to be wrong.

Junkdrawer

(27,993 posts)
6. Try to understand that CRIMES should not be used as a CASUS BELLI....
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 09:43 PM
Sep 2013

Assad wants an investigation.

We're gathering a lynch mob.

But, oh yeah, we're the Adults.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
7. There is no global ban on chemical weapons. Inventing things does not help your case.
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 09:48 PM
Sep 2013

There are five nations, Syria included, that are not signatories of the CW Conventions.

Until that convention has 100% membership, do not pretend it is 'global'. By definition, it cannot be.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
33. Not materially different from bombing it flat.
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 10:32 PM
Sep 2013

Well, except the bodies are, in a way, more disturbing, being apparently ok, yet dead the same.

I don't split philosophical hairs. I correct errors. Syria is not a signatory, the ban is not worldwide. Period.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
8. That's the part about this that troubles me the worst
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 09:50 PM
Sep 2013

The whole "Bush was wrong, but Obama is right" mentality. It makes us look like Rethuglicans.

CakeGrrl

(10,611 posts)
11. Explain how the situations are identical.
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 09:57 PM
Sep 2013

I see a different situation being addressed by a far different President than his predecessor.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
20. They both boil down to
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 10:08 PM
Sep 2013

"We have the right to militarily intervene in the affairs of another country that does not threaten us, but violates our standards of what is right and wrong, even though we were the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in any aggressive use."

That make it a little clearer for you?

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
22. Just switch the words "Bush" and "Obama"
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 10:10 PM
Sep 2013

in the sentence, and you'll have something the tea partiers say.

If it was wrong for Bush (and with a semi-international coalition, to boot), it's wrong for Obama, especially if he says he's going to do it even if Congress doesn't rubber-stamp the idea.

 

uhnope

(6,419 posts)
28. Who is saying "Bush wrong, Obama right"??? We're saying: Chemical weapons use on civilians must be
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 10:28 PM
Sep 2013

answered

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
34. Just re-read from the post I responded to
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 10:57 PM
Sep 2013

"Try to understand that because Bush was a war criminal in Iraq doesn't mean that all use of military force is going to be wrong."

If that doesn't sound like Bush was wrong but Obama is right, then I need some reading comprehension lessons. Bush managed to get other nations involved in the mistake that was Iraq, who's going along with Obama on this? It might not even be our Congress, but he says he'll do it anyway.

Answered, yes, and UN resolutions and international courts can give that answer. At least they should do so before the President strikes unilaterally.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
55. Bush riffing on Iraq's chem weapons, which Iraq had used on civilians
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 09:43 AM
Sep 2013

“Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons...We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”

~George W. Bush, October 5, 2002



“The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.

“We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his “nuclear mujahideen” - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”

~George W. Bush, October 7, 2002

BB1

(798 posts)
13. No historian here,
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 10:01 PM
Sep 2013

but already I can't figure out what's going on. What has gotten into the American public? Why bomb another country back to the Middle Ages? Who is going to be 'taught a lesson'? What's going to be the outcome? How many children are going to die?

Sure, we have our own problems here in Europe. But even for us, this is a no-brainer. Let's not do this.

Junkdrawer

(27,993 posts)
16. Media unanimity cripples critical thought.....
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 10:06 PM
Sep 2013

A very few have enough self confidence to challenge the non-stop brain washing.

But only a few.

But when things turn to hell, EVERYONE tells how they were never fooled.

NaturalHigh

(12,778 posts)
9. But we'll only kill the bad guys, right?
Mon Sep 2, 2013, 09:54 PM
Sep 2013

Anyone who dies must deserve it, right? I mean, God must not like them very much if they get killed by a righteous American bomb.

Celefin

(532 posts)
44. No-one is saying that.
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 06:28 AM
Sep 2013

A pointless act of war will not achieve that objective, something a vast majority here happen to agree on.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
45. link me
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 06:48 AM
Sep 2013

to where people here are calling for Assad to be punished for his Crimes ..... you will find very few.

Celefin

(532 posts)
48. Well link me to the opposite
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 07:10 AM
Sep 2013

It seems you aren't overly keen on reading any supplied links anyway; or did you actually have a look at the links provided in post 42?
Or maybe you just didn't want to try and refute those.

Refusing to debate arguments, comment on links when requested, post analysis or evidence of actual thought on a matter instead of countless one-liners is very much trolling IMO.

I'll leave you in peace from now on, sorry to bother you.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
53. Sorry that your post did not support your arguement
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 09:28 AM
Sep 2013

but I fail to see how it my failure. You made the claims without any support, which means i have no need to rebut your claims with source until you prove them. Reasoned debate requires for you to support your premises. I am also sorry your consider everybody that does not agree with you to be a troll.

Celefin

(532 posts)
56. That's alright, then we are both thinking the same of each other
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 09:59 AM
Sep 2013

Reasoned debate also requires you to stay on topic and not to move the goalposts.

>>>
I am also sorry your consider everybody that does not agree with you to be a troll.
<<<

*sigh* Oh please.

I rest my case - a good day to you.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
59. and a good day to you!
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 10:16 AM
Sep 2013

btw,,, you go back and reread the thread ,, you will see it was no I who changed the topic

shenmue

(38,506 posts)
74. So the U.S. doesn't have the right to do anything again?
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 01:44 PM
Sep 2013

What, did we become the only country in the world that has to be perfect before it's allowed to act? You forget that every other country has been involved in various wars as well. Strangely, you don't have the same standard for them.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
81. Wait. Which other countries keep starting wars in the Middle East?
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 02:35 PM
Sep 2013

You don't really want to bring up the logic of double standards here, do you?

Who else claims the right to "regime change" and "punishment bomb" all over the world?

Who else says they can drone a Hellfire on the head of anyone, anywhere, any time?

If anyone else announced they were going to "fix" Syria or start bombing possible militants in Pakistan, we'd be screaming bloody murder.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»we can not tolerate these...