The US should not be supporting the use of chemical weapons by anyone.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The US should not be supporting the use of chemical weapons by anyone.
So the rest of the world that doesn't want to get involved militarily supports chemical weapons? If it's decided the "rebels" used chemical weapons, the rebels that the US sent millions in aid to, does the US bomb the rebels now?
The US should not be supporting the use of chemical weapons by anyone.
But it already has, the same group Obama is supporting in this has used chemicals already, Obama turned a blind eye once the proof came out it was the FSA. Where was his outrage then, why does he continue to fund the group that used WMD's. Watch the video I posted on the last page.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
So the rest of the world that doesn't want to get involved militarily supports chemical weapons?
YES CICERO! YOUR STRAW MAN IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. YOU GOT IT EXACTLY! HOW PERCEPTIVE OF YOU! YOU'RE A GENIUS!
There. Feel better???
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
– The U.S. needs to rain sufficient firepower on Syrian targets to punish Bashar al-Assad’s government for its alleged use of chemical weapons, and encourage him not to do it again. – But it doesn’t want to cripple his military and create a vacuum that al Qaeda-linked rebels can exploit. – Syria’s closest ally, Iran, is keenly interested in the scale of American punishment, knowing its nuclear program might be next in line for U.S. targeting. – Finally, the Obama Administration, which came into office vowing to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, needs to convince a war-weary U.S. public that it isn’t being dragged into a third Middle Eastern conflict.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Wow, all caps thus earily in the morning? The underwear on a little tight?
YUP CISSY! YOU GOT IT! I'M TOTALLY ENRAGED AND OUT OF CONTROL! WHY NOT YET ANOTHER STRAW MAN INSTEAD OF AN ACTUAL POST OF SOME MEANING? PLEASE GIVE US ANOTHER STRAW MAN... PLEASE... WE'RE ALL WAITING FOR YOUR WORDS OF STRAW MAN WISDOM!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
“This is about a lot more than Syria,” said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations. “Any strike should also be sufficiently large so that it would underscore the message that chemical weapons as a weapon of mass destruction simply cannot be used with impunity,” he said. “That these can no way enter into the space of normal weaponry. The audience here is not simply the Syrian government to get them to recalculate in the future, but it’s any would-be user of chemical, biological or nuclear materials to underscore the fact that any potential use of these would bring tremendous pain upon the party responsible.” And that, as Haass points out, is the most hopeful outcome of U.S. action — that Assad and regimes across the world see that Washington and its allies will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons and decide that the pain inflicted is not worth enduring in the future.
Politico
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
– The U.S. needs to rain sufficient firepower on Syrian targets to punish Bashar al-Assad’s government for its alleged use of chemical weapons, and encourage him not to do it again..
Where is the proof it was Assad, there is no evidence, yet there is evidence and a motive for the FSA to use it, which it was already proven they already did before.
.[/quote]– But it doesn’t want to cripple his military and create a vacuum that al Qaeda-linked rebels can exploit..[/quote]
Obama is already funding the rebels, the same type of people our soldiers died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, thank you soldiers you died for nothing.
.[/quote]– Syria’s closest ally, Iran, is keenly interested in the scale of American punishment, knowing its nuclear program might be next in line for U.S. targeting..[/quote]
Yup just like already reported by the general, the plans are already set in motion, polish up that peace prize Mr. President
.[/quote]– Finally, the Obama Administration, which came into office vowing to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, needs to convince a war-weary U.S. public that it isn’t being dragged into a third Middle Eastern conflict.[/quote]
But it is, if you launch missiles into a country that is a act of war, it is not a humanitarian mission or police action. Nice try by the editor to sugar coat what may happen.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
YUP CISSY! YOU GOT IT! I'M TOTALLY ENRAGED AND OUT OF CONTROL! WHY NOT YET ANOTHER STRAW MAN INSTEAD OF AN ACTUAL POST OF SOME MEANING? PLEASE GIVE US ANOTHER STRAW MAN... PLEASE... WE'RE ALL WAITING FOR YOUR WORDS OF STRAW MAN WISDOM!
Wasn't really a straw man, maybe a red herring. None the less, it's a question. I don't believe condemnation without bombing them isn't support. Many other countries condemn the use of chemical weapons, but dropping tons of conventional bombs onto a country which will likely kill innocent people isn't any less of an atrocity.
Wasn't really a straw man, maybe a red herring. None the less, it's a question. I don't believe condemnation without bombing them isn't support. Many other countries condemn the use of chemical weapons, but dropping tons of conventional bombs onto a country which will likely kill innocent people isn't any less of an atrocity.
See you can actually post some meaningful words to make a complete thought if you try. So why the straw man???
To answer your question: "Many other countries condemn the use of chemical weapons, but dropping tons of conventional bombs onto a country which will likely kill innocent people isn't any less of an atrocity." Yes it is 'less of an atrocity'.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The problem with getting involved with either side is who are the good guys? Who should we support or should we just stay out of this mess. A better move would be to let the useless UN take the lead.
The problem with getting involved with either side is who are the good guys? Who should we support or should we just stay out of this mess. A better move would be to let the useless UN take the lead.
I don't think anyone is talking about 'supporting the good guys'... this is about punishing those who use chemical weapons, or condone their use.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
