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.
It's about time that the Saudis or others in that region step up to the plate. It might be in the best interests of the Saudis to have stability in the Middle East -- so let them have their kids killed for this cause.
Really? Where is it in our constitution that we are the worlds police force. And where is the proof that It was Assad that used the weapons.
Rogue nations such as Russia and China? What makes them rogue besides the fact they disagree with us?
The UN is against a military option also. Is the UN rogue too? This is beginning to sound like they are all wrong and we are right argument.
Not our business and not worth 1 tax dollar.
Morale obligation? According to who? I think we have a morale obligation to take care of our own problems first.
The Arabs. They want something done and maybe it is time we let them clean their own back yard. I hate to sound cold hearted but really this is none of our business. let the locals deal with it.
I don't buy your argument that the Constitution doesn't lend to intervention in world matters. Using your philosophy, we should have never engaged in war in any part of the world at any time. Would you have not engaged in WWI? Would you have not engaged in WWII? What about the Gulf War? How do you hedge on the Constitution and reconcile that hedging with past successes in past wars? Would you have not engaged in those actions because our Constitution doesn't actually make us the "world police?"
The UN is irrelevant as in institution. We can all act like we have an obligation to be bound by its various annexes and policies, but at the end of the day, an irrelevant and ineffectual organization such as the UN should not be the ultimate arbiter of what is right and good in this world. The United States has long stepped up to fill the vacuum created by the UN, and in the case of banned weapon use on civilian populations, the United States above all has the moral obligation to see to it that the UN doesn't cower to "allies" such as China and Russia....whose only interests are economic.....in battling a rogue dictator such as Assad. That's what American Exceptionalism is all about. If you don't believe in it, then you should say so out loud and forthrightly.
I don't buy your argument that the Constitution doesn't lend to intervention in world matters. Using your philosophy, we should have never engaged in war in any part of the world at any time. Would you have not engaged in WWI? Would you have not engaged in WWII? What about the Gulf War? How do you hedge on the Constitution and reconcile that hedging with past successes in past wars? Would you have not engaged in those actions because our Constitution doesn't actually make us the "world police?"
The UN is irrelevant as in institution. We can all act like we have an obligation to be bound by its various annexes and policies, but at the end of the day, an irrelevant and ineffectual organization such as the UN should not be the ultimate arbiter of what is right and good in this world. The United States has long stepped up to fill the vacuum created by the UN, and in the case of banned weapon use on civilian populations, the United States above all has the moral obligation to see to it that the UN doesn't cower to "allies" such as China and Russia....whose only interests are economic.....in battling a rogue dictator such as Assad. That's what American Exceptionalism is all about. If you don't believe in it, then you should say so out loud and forthrightly.
Iran stormed our embassy and held the staff hostage for over a year. Iran denied the holocaust. Iran outlawed internet use and peaceful protest. Iran hangs homosexuals and stones women. Iran trains and funds known terrorists.
And the UN put Iran on its human rights council.
At that point the UN lost whatever limited credibility it might once have had.
Sure. And you said the exact same thing about Bush when he attacked Iraq, right? This isn't partisan at all. It's about doing the right thing.
I did support action Iraq, and I still do, but I think the way it happened was wrong. Invading under false pretenses against international law was not the way to go. Endorsing action doesn't mean endorsing any action, that would be crazy. I endorse action in Syria to help civilians, but I wouldn't endorse actions like nuking it or carpet bombing the country.
If you can find something where I said differently I would like to see it. Thank you for trying to poison the well.
I did support action Iraq, and I still do, but I think the way it happened was wrong. Invading under false pretenses against international law was not the way to go. Endorsing action doesn't mean endorsing any action, that would be crazy. I endorse action in Syria to help civilians, but I wouldn't endorse actions like nuking it or carpet bombing the country.
If you can find something where I said differently I would like to see it. Thank you for trying to poison the well.
How does bombing their nation help the children? But yeah --- that "It's for the children" works each and every time.
At any rate --- Obama has not yet explained what our goals would be in bombing the hell out of Syria. So we bomb them, kill enough civilians to get at Assad, bring him down, and then what?
Do we then bomb the barbarious rebels to get them under our control? Or do we allow them to go on cutting out hearts and eating them? Or do we just leave them in anarchy after we take down their government because we don't like it?
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.
