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

Status
Not open for further replies.
cawacko said:
you said there was no way for man to avoid military action forever with someone like Kim Jong-un. The question to you should be when will we face military action with him?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for Desh, but we should not "take out" Kim Jong-un. He's definitely a crazy man, but he can really only hurt his own people. While he has some limited offensive capabilities, if he ever attacked another country he'd be swatted down in no time.

There is no credible alternative to him in that country.

I feel so awful for the people that have to live there; but aside from humanitarian aid for any that manage to escape, not much we can do except to keep working with him diplomatically to see if we can improve things.
 
tekkychick said:
Well, no; we didn't go to war in Iraq because years before they had gassed the Kurds. But - because they had gassed the Kurds - Bush Jr was able to convince everyone that Iraq might still have WMDs even though all evidence pointed against it; he then made it seem like Iraq would use those against the US. So preventing use of chemical weapons against us was one of the ways he sold the war, even though it was a bunch of malarky.

Bush's real motives remain murky, even to him I bet.
Click to expand...

Bush didn't have ANY motives. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Libby had motives. Bush remained completely in the dark until the last few months of his last term.
 
evince said:
I hope Obama bombs them no matter what you talk congress the chicken shits into.


If they do not hand over these weapons without delay then they need to have no weapons with which to deliver them with.



You tell me HOW the world benefits by telling this assad asshole that no one will say anything to him gassing babies.


The right in this country has no fucking morals left
Click to expand...


Good lord Desh how can you wish for random bombing and continued imperialism? Are you truly insane? It seems like every week someone goes completely nuts around here these days.
 
tekkychick said:
Oh - this differs from Syria because in Syria weapons WERE used (even if we aren't sure which side used them) and the intelligence does show that Assad has chemical weapons stockpiled - the "poor countries' nuclear weapon" as I heard them described lately.

Syria isn't threatening us with them; but there is no doubt there are chemical weapons there.

So - there is a case for missile strikes against Syria while there was not a case for invading Iraq and overthrowing Hussein. Note: Pres. Obama is NOT asking to put troops on the ground; he's not saying it's a threat against us; he's not doing all the things Bush did with Iraq. These are two very different situations and each should be judged accordingly.

Obviously not everyone agrees the case is strong enough for striking Syria; but there is at least a case to be made that's based on reality.

While the same case could have been made to strike Iraq when they were actually gassing the Kurds - well, obviously at the time the USA did not think it was a priority to stop chemical weapons.
Click to expand...

No, a case can not be made for bombing a sovereign nation any more this time than the last time.

Absolutely not.
 
tekkychick said:
It was morally corrupt. We chose not to do anything about it.

Because we stood by and did nothing once, does that mean we should stand by and do nothing now?

But again - Iraq's actions against the Kurds had NOTHING to do with why Bush Jr eventually went to war against Iraq. Nothing.
Click to expand...

Wow you are so fooling yourself. It had almost everything to do with it, since it was his own father who had done nothing. It is almost the entire reason that Iraq was selected by the Cabal of Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld for attack.
The three stooges didn't care what country was attacked, but there sure as hell was going to be a war now that the 25 year old triumvirate finally had the power to fulfil their plans. Iraq was an incredibly easy sell in turns of actually being Bush jr's will, since his daddy had wimped out a decade earlier. This was the chance to clear the Bush name.
 
tekkychick said:
We didn't even have the discussion back then, when he used the chemical weapons. My guess if is Reagan had said he wanted to do missile strikes at Iraq WHILE he was using chemical weapons on the Kurds, Desh would have been in favor of that. We all should have been; chemical weapons have been declared illegal by all the world's governing bodies.

But you can't say that she must also have been in favor of the Iraq war; because that was a totally different time and situation from gassing the Kurds. You are trying to conflate two very different things. Hussein was no longer using chemical weapons at the time we went to war with him.

You are trying to expose something that just isn't there.
Click to expand...

Again, you are entirely missing Thing 1's point. Desh is indeed pushing for bombing of a sovereign nation, a fact which cannot be denied, no matter what supposedly exigent circumstances you point out.
 
Thing1 said:
There is no way Desh would have supported missile strikes.

Saddam tortured and murdered many of his own people. On an "evil" scale, you'd be splitting hairs to say he is any different from Assad whatsoever.

And here we have desh - vehemently opposed to action against Saddam, but as gung-ho a war hawk as I have ever seen w/ Assad. The ONLY difference is that there is an Democrat in power now, and there was a Republican in power in 2003.

I feel a little bad that you're unable to see that, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

This
 
Rune said:
Surely you are not so simple as to believe it is Obama who is the problem and not the system, especially as it developed exactly how Eisenhower predicted;

Click to expand...
He also warned against scientific "elite" creating policy in that same speech and was equally prophetic.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.
Click to expand...
 
Rune said:
Again, you are entirely missing Thing 1's point. Desh is indeed pushing for bombing of a sovereign nation, a fact which cannot be denied, no matter what supposedly exigent circumstances you point out.
Click to expand...

Yes - pushing for bombing a nation that is using (supposedly) chemical weapons, which are banned by civilized nations.

What is your alternative for punishing a nation that goes against world law?

Syria can do what it wants against its own people - until it gets to chemical and biological weapons.

We can sit by and say "sure, use them, we don't care, do whatever you want, regardless of the fact most nations have agreed that chemical weapons are criminal"

Or

we can punish the criminal for using chemical weapons.

Again - we have to prove they used them; we have to ensure our response doesn't make things worse; and it would be much better to do it in a coalition.

But for the world to stand by and say "no biggie, Assad, use chemical weapons, we don't care" - that also poses problems.
 
Rune said:
Wow you are so fooling yourself. It had almost everything to do with it, since it was his own father who had done nothing. It is almost the entire reason that Iraq was selected by the Cabal of Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld for attack.
The three stooges didn't care what country was attacked, but there sure as hell was going to be a war now that the 25 year old triumvirate finally had the power to fulfil their plans. Iraq was an incredibly easy sell in turns of actually being Bush jr's will, since his daddy had wimped out a decade earlier. This was the chance to clear the Bush name.
Click to expand...

I agree Bush Jr's daddy issues have a lot to do with why he went to war against Iraq. I just DON'T agree that "Iraquis chemically attacked the Kurds" had anything to do with it. Bush didn't care about the Kurds. Cheney didn't care about the Kurds. No one did, obviously.
 
tekkychick said:
Exactly. So comparing Iraq to Syria - doesn't work.
Click to expand...

No, actually he is pointing out why both Desh and your arguments are wrong.

To paraphrase; Invading Iraq was not a humanitarian intervention on any level whatsoever. (actually that is a direct quote but fuck it)
The point is that hurling bombs can never be considered humanitarian intervention which is what is being claimed.
 
to answer the OP question, I think for starters we should try not to cheer our leaders on when they bomb countries because they gave themselves a red line and now can't look weak.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top