How do you have a world without war with sociopaths running countries?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven't read this thread, really, but I just thought it worth pointing out that Invading Iraq was not a humanitarian intervention on any level whatsoever. There is no legitimate argument that invading Iraq was in retaliation for Saddam gassing the Kurds in 1988 (while we were party to an intelligence sharing operation that helped him more effectively gas the Iranians) or attacks against the Kurds in 1991. We already had a no-fly zone in place which served to prevent Saddam from actually controlling the Kurdish areas and preventing him from being able to take any military action against them.
 
evince said:
IMAGINE if this was Bush?


I backed Bush into Afganistan.


I did not back him into Iraq because he was lying.

that now has been proven he was lying.


It was also proven he used WP in falugia.


What is Obama big crime here folks?


wanting to keep the assasd clown from killing YET MORE innocents and you people claim its some fucking crime to do so.


fuck you are sick assed bastards
Click to expand...

You really don't expect people to believe you would back this if it were a Republican do you?
 
evince said:
there are and have always been sociopaths in mankinds population.


They must not be allowed to have power.
It should be a medical condition that prevents you from serving in office.


until we can effect that one world wide then you have to be able to take these sociopaths OUT when they threaten the world
Click to expand...

Can't be done. We can't eliminate sociopaths; and we can't take out a leader just because we consider them a sociopath. That way lies world-wide anarchy.

I'm not even advocating taking out Assad - although he has killed so many of his own people. That's not our job.

I can - reluctantly - understand why Pres Obama wants to try to do some kind of targeted response - IF Assad really did use chemical weapons. Because that is against all the world's treaties, and if we can't punish a treaty breaker, then the treaties are worthless pieces of paper. (Ok, some of you - perhaps many of you -really do think they are worthless).

I think I've made my position pretty clear - the civil war in Syria is horrible; we can't do anything militarily about it; we should be giving a LOT more humanitarian relief; and if we can punish Assad for use of chemical weapons (if he did use them) in a way that won't make everything worse (which seemed doubtful) then I could support a few missile strikes. I don't want boots on the ground; I don't want us picking a side; but a punishment, I'm reluctantly ok with. I just don't see how we do it without making things worse; and if we can't do that, then I'm against it.

And I totally understand those of you who don't want to do even limited strikes. It's a very valid position as well, and one I could see supporting myself, mainly because I don't see them helping.

But - if our threats have led to Assad admitting he has the weapons and a way forward to possibly get those out of his control and out of control of the rebels - that would be a better outcome than any of us would have expected.
 
Dungheap said:
I haven't read this thread, really, but I just thought it worth pointing out that Invading Iraq was not a humanitarian intervention on any level whatsoever. There is no legitimate argument that invading Iraq was in retaliation for Saddam gassing the Kurds in 1988 (while we were party to an intelligence sharing operation that helped him more effectively gas the Iranians) or attacks against the Kurds in 1991. We already had a no-fly zone in place which served to prevent Saddam from actually controlling the Kurdish areas and preventing him from being able to take any military action against them.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So comparing Iraq to Syria - doesn't work.
 
The US has used chemical weapons against Syrian babies!

The proof: Same as the US proof for Syria's use of them. The US has them too!

Verdict: Guilty.

Now let's get them bombs loaded up so we can save some more people by bombing them surgically.
 
tekkychick said:
Can't be done. We can't eliminate sociopaths; and we can't take out a leader just because we consider them a sociopath. That way lies world-wide anarchy.

I'm not even advocating taking out Assad - although he has killed so many of his own people. That's not our job.

I can - reluctantly - understand why Pres Obama wants to try to do some kind of targeted response - IF Assad really did use chemical weapons. Because that is against all the world's treaties, and if we can't punish a treaty breaker, then the treaties are worthless pieces of paper. (Ok, some of you - perhaps many of you -really do think they are worthless).

I think I've made my position pretty clear - the civil war in Syria is horrible; we can't do anything militarily about it; we should be giving a LOT more humanitarian relief; and if we can punish Assad for use of chemical weapons (if he did use them) in a way that won't make everything worse (which seemed doubtful) then I could support a few missile strikes. I don't want boots on the ground; I don't want us picking a side; but a punishment, I'm reluctantly ok with. I just don't see how we do it without making things worse; and if we can't do that, then I'm against it.

And I totally understand those of you who don't want to do even limited strikes. It's a very valid position as well, and one I could see supporting myself, mainly because I don't see them helping.

But - if our threats have led to Assad admitting he has the weapons and a way forward to possibly get those out of his control and out of control of the rebels - that would be a better outcome than any of us would have expected.
Click to expand...



I agree.

I would prefer the chem weapons be gone and destroyed so they are no longer on the planet for anyone to use.


I will back Obama if he has to bomb to show that America at least will act and make it expensive for any country to use them.
 
Use them and it will cost you as much of your weapondry as we CAN BOMB.

You cant bomb chem weapons and destroy them safely
 
tekkychick said:
Exactly. So comparing Iraq to Syria - doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Be very careful to not call the gas a WMD. It doesn't sound good in retrospect after Iraq.

And forget about Obama referring to the 'cold hospital floor' because it's not the same 'cold hospital floor' on which the Iraqi soldiers threw the Kuwaiti incubator babies.

See! There's a lot of difference this time!
 
Now you want to color every American born into the future for the Bush admin.


Hate is your go to mode
 
monty1 said:
Be very careful to not call the gas a WMD. It doesn't sound good in retrospect after Iraq.

And forget about Obama referring to the 'cold hospital floor' because it's not the same 'cold hospital floor' on which the Iraqi soldiers threw the Kuwaiti incubator babies.

See! There's a lot of difference this time!
Click to expand...

Looks like you're the same dupe for propaganda that you've been railing about in others.

"In fact, the most emotionally moving testimony on October 10 came from a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only by her first name of Nayirah. According to the Caucus, Nayirah's full name was being kept confidential to prevent Iraqi reprisals against her family in occupied Kuwait. Sobbing, she described what she had seen with her own eyes in a hospital in Kuwait City. Her written testimony was passed out in a media kit prepared by Citizens for a Free Kuwait. "I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital," Nayirah said. "While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where ... babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die."83

Three months passed between Nayirah's testimony and the start of the war. During those months, the story of babies torn from their incubators was repeated over and over again. President Bush told the story. It was recited as fact in Congressional testimony, on TV and radio talk shows, and at the UN Security Council. "Of all the accusations made against the dictator," MacArthur observed, "none had more impact on American public opinion than the one about Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors of Kuwait City."84

At the Human Rights Caucus, however, Hill & Knowlton and Congressman Lantos had failed to reveal that Nayirah was a member of the Kuwaiti Royal Family. Her father, in fact, was Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait's Ambassador to the US, who sat listening in the hearing room during her testimony. The Caucus also failed to reveal that H&K vice-president Lauri Fitz-Pegado had coached Nayirah in what even the Kuwaitis' own investigators later confirmed was false testimony.

If Nayirah's outrageous lie had been exposed at the time it was told, it might have at least caused some in Congress and the news media to soberly reevaluate the extent to which they were being skillfully manipulated to support military action. Public opinion was deeply divided on Bush's Gulf policy. As late as December 1990, a New York Times/CBS News poll indicated that 48 percent of the American people wanted Bush to wait before taking any action if Iraq failed to withdraw from Kuwait by Bush's January 15 deadline.85 On January 12, the US Senate voted by a narrow, five-vote margin to support the Bush administration in a declaration of war. Given the narrowness of the vote, the babies-thrown-from-incubators story may have turned the tide in Bush's favor.

Following the war, human rights investigators attempted to confirm Nayirah's story and could find no witnesses or other evidence to support it. Amnesty International, which had fallen for the story, was forced to issue an embarrassing retraction. Nayirah herself was unavailable for comment. "This is the first allegation I've had that she was the ambassador's daughter," said Human Rights Caucus co-chair John Porter. "Yes, I think people ... were entitled to know the source of her testimony." When journalists for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation asked Nasir al-Sabah for permission to question Nayirah about her story, the ambassador angrily refused.86

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html
 
there is NO way for man to avoid military action forever when you have sociopathic dictators with so much weapondry and control
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top