Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would agree with this but as noted, we seem to be the only one not supplying proof. Proof can also be questioned but with none to present you have no justification at all.
My problem wasn't with the proof. My problem was with the goal. Here's a country engulfed in a civil war, bombing one another, firing missiles at each other, civilians caught in the crossfire. And a country on the other side of the world is going to to fire a limited number of missiles at a limited number of specific targets, to accomplish.....what? More destruction? You can't fire at chemical weapons depots, because you risk releasing the toxic weapons into the atmosphere. So...., you're going to fire at government military installations that you can rely on not having chemical weapons stored? To weaken government forces? That sounds like a government bent on regime change, not on protecting the innocents being attacked.
I understand we took a stance, drew a red line as it were, but we aren't part of the conflict (officially), and so the line we are drawing has to be to everyone involved, and any response has to be to everyone involved. I don't think a military response to everyone involved is appropriate. The response has to be diplomatic, and it has to be unconventional, us joining forces with unexpected allies to effect peace, for instance. If we are to be leaders, that means leading, moving forward into uncharted territories. We need to be bold and innovative. We're the only superpower in the world, but we act like we don't know what that means. We can't control the world or police the world or dictate to the world. But we can change the world.
My problem wasn't with the proof. My problem was with the goal. Here's a country engulfed in a civil war, bombing one another, firing missiles at each other, civilians caught in the crossfire. And a country on the other side of the world is going to to fire a limited number of missiles at a limited number of specific targets, to accomplish.....what? More destruction? You can't fire at chemical weapons depots, because you risk releasing the toxic weapons into the atmosphere. So...., you're going to fire at government military installations that you can rely on not having chemical weapons stored? To weaken government forces? That sounds like a government bent on regime change, not on protecting the innocents being attacked.
I understand we took a stance, drew a red line as it were, but we aren't part of the conflict (officially), and so the line we are drawing has to be to everyone involved, and any response has to be to everyone involved. I don't think a military response to everyone involved is appropriate. The response has to be diplomatic, and it has to be unconventional, us joining forces with unexpected allies to effect peace, for instance. If we are to be leaders, that means leading, moving forward into uncharted territories. We need to be bold and innovative. We're the only superpower in the world, but we act like we don't know what that means. We can't control the world or police the world or dictate to the world. But we can change the world.
I think that is what has been said about the Israel/Palestine issue for decades.
I think that is what has been said about the Israel/Palestine issue for decades.
I agree with you that we've tried to lead the combatants to peace, and we've failed. But I would say, as well, that we've used the same strategies and the same rhetoric since Jimmy Carter. We haven't been innovative in our approach, we haven't brought in new allies, we haven't actually looked at the problem from any different angles. Granted, it's a tough nut to crack. But putting the nutcracker in the same position and squeezing it day after day after day isn't getting us anywhere. We need a different nutcracker, and some new angles.
I agree with you that we've tried to lead the combatants to peace, and we've failed. But I would say, as well, that we've used the same strategies and the same rhetoric since Jimmy Carter. We haven't been innovative in our approach, we haven't brought in new allies, we haven't actually looked at the problem from any different angles. Granted, it's a tough nut to crack. But putting the nutcracker in the same position and squeezing it day after day after day isn't getting us anywhere. We need a different nutcracker, and some new angles.
The sides are pretty much the same with Syria as it is with Israel/Palestine outside of we seem confused over who to support in Syria.
According to Washington the two sides are the bad guy that uses poison gas and Al Qaeda who is supposed to be our enemy.
How do you get others on board? How does the conversation go?
"Yes, we have argued for over a decade that we want you to help us in our battle with Al Qaeda but how about changes sides for awhile"?
I didn't think it was a great speech. Obviously the first two-thirds was written maybe last week. I was terrified that he wasn't even going to raise the issue of the Russian proposal.
Many pundits are taking issue with his getting from (A) Syria used chemical weapons so that means (B) Our troops could face chemical weapons on the battlefield. I didn't think it was as huge a leap as some are making it, but it's a fair criticism.
No, Obama didn't just say "The attack is off" and leave.
It was like he was going from NYC to Boston via San Diego.
Basically he had to save face but from the several articles I've read even his own side didn't have too much good to say bout that speech.
Come on, it wasn't that long of a speech.
It wasn't a very good speech, and there wasn't much for him to speak about, but it wasn't that long.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
