No, she is quite openminded and capable of being reasoned with.
How do you have a world without war with sociopaths running countries?
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
- Status
No, she is quite openminded and capable of being reasoned with.
When were we elected the world police? If we are, what happened in Rwanda and Beirut and why do we allow the ongoing carnage on the West Bank?(pretty hypocritical of us no?) Why have we allowed N. Korea to go unpunished?
I am sorry, but you really need to rethink this. Peace is never earned through war.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Don't cloud their minds with facts. They only want to cherry pick what fits their leftist agenda. Sorta like them forgetting that JFK was a supply sider and advocated lowering tax rates for the rich. shhhh don't tell
Callinectes
Proud MAGA Semi-Facist
LOL, just wait.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
So I give you the reply you requested and nothing? It is just simpler calling him the Nigger in Chief. Much more pithy and to the point. I can spare the bandwidth
Because she thinks "Kurds" are the lumps in Greek yogurt?
Yes, at a time when taxes were at a historical high, a little different than now, when they are at a historical low, but don't let the facts bother you either.
tekkychick
New member
We aren't the world police. The world should be joining us in condemning Assad for chemical weapons.
No one says striking Assad for chemical weapons will bring peace. It's strictly a punishment for going too far. It won't bring peace. I agree with that.
Why this and not another place? N. Korea isn't using chemical weapons, just starvation. Israel isn't using chemical weapons. Rwanda and Beirut aren't using chemical weapons.
Having said that, is there also a case for not punishing Assad? Sure. He's using chemical weapons against just his own people (if it is proven); we could stand aside and ignore it saying it's none of our business.
I don't know which stance is best. I just say there IS an argument either way - both for punishing him AND for not punishing him.
There is NO argument for putting troops on the ground and supporting the rebels with a lot of our military in their fight against Assad. That I would agree with 100%. But I think whether or not to punish him for chemical weapons - each side has supporting arguments. I'm just glad I'm not the one sitting on the hot seat making the decision.
With good diplomacy, hopefully we get the best of both worlds - we don't actually have to send any missile strikes AND the chemical weapons are removed from his control (and the control of the rebels if they win).
tekkychick
New member
Not the issue in this op.
If I had been asked, I would have pushed for Iraq to be broken up into three areas - Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis - with the oil reserves and revenues shared by all three areas. But hey, Bush didn't ask me.
Right now, Syria is the issue on the table. And I believe the tone of my posts have made it clear I have mixed emotions around what we should do. I just don't think it's fair for people to say there is no reason to punish Assad for using chemical weapons. It's fine to say you don't think the reasons are good enough for our intervention - but to deny the treaties and to deny that reasons exist is deceptive.
My dear, the US launching missiles will without doubt cause the death of innocent people.
That is all I need to know to know where I stand.
We have way too much blood on our hands already.
What gives us the right to rain death from the sky?
I am very sorry but there is simply no valid argument for us bombing another country.
tekkychick
New member
Big money said:
Even when we totally disagree, I have great respect for Rune. And we don't actually totally disagree here. But Rune knows how to disagree without being an asshole, unlike some others on this site.
I really do understand where those against intervention are coming from. And I also understand where those for intervention are coming from. This is a tough one.
Seriously, I am trying to stay calm here.
Who appointed us as the world issuer of punishment? What possible right could exist which would allow us to kill innocent human beings because their leader was immoral and needed "punishment"?
tekkychick
New member
Please, I'm not trying to run up your blood pressure. But if- by punishing Assad - we keep him and others from using chemical weapons in the future - we will be saving those future lives.
When a leader takes an action that most of the world considers criminal - and if by reacting we can stop them from doing it again - we do save lives in the long run.
However, yes - there will be civilians affected by our bombing (if we do it) as well. That's why we should only do it if we're sure he used chemical weapons and if we're sure that we will do more good than harm - both are very high hurdles. And we should only do it as a multilateral action; it should not be our decision alone, but a decision that civilized countries agree on.
I know these are big "ifs" and high hurdles and that is why I am glad diplomacy seems to be winning out. But would we be sitting here right now - with Assad finally admitting he has the weapons AND a chance - a small chance, but a chance - of getting rid of them if we hadn't used our big stick?
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Taxes are not at a historical low. They have just shifted. If you only look at income tax rates, you could argue that point. But it would be wrong headed and a lie. There are things we are taxed on today that were not taxed back then. So you aren't making a relevant comparison.
Secondly, you can't just look at marginal rates, although that is a start. People were able to deduct many more things back then. Socialist inSecurity tax rates were lower then. They are at "historical highs" now since you want to use that term. And Mediscare taxes didn't exist back then.
The claim that we are at "historical low tax rates" is laughable on its face
Sure ILA. I learned my lesson about you finally.
I was wrong and Billy and the others were right.
Not only do you add no value, you subtract value.
Are you happy now?
Today, 06:43 PM
I Love America
Free Markets Rule
[h=2] This message is hidden because I Love America is on your ignore list. [/h]
Again? How many times is this?
Not sure, but certainly the final time.
Sure, it is.
- Status