Syria became a perfect political football for President Obama

[reo]

 

Pretty funny but I think they over reached on it. Should've been about half as long.

 

The "Paid for by Koch Industries" at the end was funny too.

[Guest]

I read an article over the weekend. 

 

100000 civilians have died in the Syrian conflict so far and Barry did nothing. Because a tiny % die in a chemical attack they NOW have moral authority to do something where they didn't before?

 

The children who died from gas attacks did so more sadly and unfairly than those who die of missiles and bombs and artillery?

 

This makes no sense. A senseless death is a death is a death. The fact that the line is drawn at what types of weapons reeks of ego and logical disconnect. "Kill all the people you want...just don't use gas". 

 

[reo]

U.S., UK and U.N. documents on Syria

 

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/08/world/syria-documents/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

I of course haven't been able to (and probably won't) read it all.

 

but there's also this:

 

'War crime': U.N. finds sarin used in Syria chemical weapons attack

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/politics/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[reo]

I read an article over the weekend. 

 

100000 civilians have died in the Syrian conflict so far and Barry did nothing. Because a tiny % die in a chemical attack they NOW have moral authority to do something where they didn't before?

 

The children who died from gas attacks did so more sadly and unfairly than those who die of missiles and bombs and artillery?

 

This makes no sense. A senseless death is a death is a death. The fact that the line is drawn at what types of weapons reeks of ego and logical disconnect. "Kill all the people you want...just don't use gas". 

 

 

It's about defining where intervention starts. So many people want to stay out of it no matter what and they've done that but there comes a time where you can't stand by and watch. They drew that line w/ chemical weapons so we'll see how that goes.

 

Where would your red line be?

[reo]

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2013/09/16/sot-un-report-released-payton-walsh.cnn.html

[Guest]

It's about defining where intervention starts. So many people want to stay out of it no matter what and they've done that but there comes a time where you can't stand by and watch. They drew that line w/ chemical weapons so we'll see how that goes.

 

Where would your red line be?

 

My red line would be I don't make it my business to act in other countries affairs unless it's part of a broader coalition directed by the UN. 

 

But, more in line with the premise of this guy's article and my post, either of these would be more sensical and less hypocritical:

 

1. We will intervene in any country's situation if it means saving and protecting civilian lives. 

 

2. We will not intervene in any country's situation to save lives even if they are being wiped out by chemical gas because how they are being killed is irrelevant. 

[reo]

My red line would be I don't make it my business to act in other countries affairs unless it's part of a broader coalition directed by the UN. 

 

Hitler would probably thank you (intentionally extreme example)

 

 

But, more in line with the premise of this guy's article and my post, either of these would be more sensical and less hypocritical:

 

1. We will intervene in any country's situation if it means saving and protecting civilian lives. 

 

2. We will not intervene in any country's situation to save lives even if they are being wiped out by chemical gas because how they are being killed is irrelevant. 

 

So you don't like red lines defining when to act?

 

3. We will not intervene unless WMDs are being used against civilians.

 

Seems alright to me. The problem now is proving it and then deciding on what to do. Seems like Syria may give up their chemical weapons to prevent military action though which could work.

[Guest]

Why is it "alright" that they annihilate their own citizens with so called "conventional" weapons and not chemical? What is the difference?

3. We will not intervene unless WMDs are being used against civilians.

 

Seems alright to me. 

[reo]

Why is it "alright" that they annihilate their own citizens with so called "conventional" weapons and not chemical? What is the difference?

 

I would think it's the difference between targeted military action against rebels w/ some civilian casualties vs the mass and indiscriminate killing that comes w/ WMDs when you can't and recklessly don't even try to distinguish between the two.

 

And to some extend it's just the simple act of having a line drawn to define when to intervene and how far you can be pushed even if the line itself in the end is really pretty much irrelevant.

 

 

 

It's like saying you don't fight unless someone smacks you in the face. Then you have to define what a "smack" is. Is it a punch or slap? Does the difference really matter or are you just setting a line where you'll take action?

[ALTitan]

Hitler would probably thank you (intentionally extreme example)

 

It is a stupid example, since Hitler was not involved in a civil war.

[ALTitan]

 Yeah, I feel sorry for reo and other Obama supporters who are trying to defend the sh%t that chemical weapons are somehow worse than this:

 

Fighters from the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front have reportedly killed 22 people, including women, children and elderly men, in an Alawite village in central Syria, a rights monitoring group said on Thursday.

 

The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is opposed to Assad, said the victims included seven women, three men over the age of 65, and four children under the age of 16, Reuters reported.

 

Rami Abdelrahman, head of the Observatory, said the victims were not members of any pro-Assad militias. They were shot in their homes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/12/al-qaeda-linked-syrian-rebels-kill-7-women-4-child/

[Guest]

Imagine showing people even 50 years ago the type of weaponry that's out there. Freaking cruise missiles that can take out a city block. You think those people would get it when you say they aren't weapons of mass destruction?

 

They (allegedly) targeted civilian neighbourhoods who sympathize and host with rebels. It would have been fine to send in troops to rape all the women and cut the throats of all the children....just don't use mustard gas or we are going to have to do something!

[reo]

It is a stupid example, since Hitler was not involved in a civil war.

 

So killing tons of innocent kids and other civilians w/ WMDs is ok if it's part of a civil war?

 

Point being if you set the standard that you never interfere w/ a country's own affairs then people like Hitler get free reign. It's an extreme example but a valid one.

[ALTitan]

Point being if you set the standard that you never interfere w/ a country's own affairs then people like Hitler get free reign. It's an extreme example but a valid one.

 

 Point being that you did not get the point that Hitler has started mass killing only after he has started invading other countries. Ghettos were established only with the invasion of Poland in 1939. So, talking about Hitler and country's internal affairs just does not make sense. If you still don't get it, then read history books.

[reo]

 Point being that you did not get the point that Hitler has started mass killing only after he has started invading other countries. Ghettos were established only with the invasion of Poland in 1939. So, talking about Hitler and country's internal affairs just does not make sense. If you still don't get it, then read history books.

 

yeah so if he had started killing before invading Poland in 1939, some people's policy of not interfering would've been ok?

 

ALTitan is fine w/ Hitler killing millions of Jews just as long as he doesn't go international w/ it!

 

It's used as an extreme example for a point, not saying it's the exact same thing. It's not that difficult.