General Discussion

truebrit71

(20,805 posts) Fri Aug 30, 2013, 11:47 AM Aug 2013

I get the desire not to engage in full-scale war...but we're okay with chemical weapons? [View all]

I understand that the US is tired of waging foreign wars, a phrase I thought I'd never type to be honest, but we have a dictator using chemical weapons on innocent civilians here. Does our bush-era Iraq cynicism trump the bodies of dead children?

The irony that the majority of Americans don't want to fight a war against someone that actually DOES have WMD, as opposed to gormlessly backing the chimp-in-chief's mis-adventure against a country that DIDN'T have WMD is a bitter pill to swallow...especially when we see the very real cost in the tiny sheet-wrapped bodies of innocent children on the television screen...

I don't pretend to know the answer, or what the 'appropriate' response is, but I think we have a moral obligation to let whomever unleashed chemical weapons on civilians know, in no uncertain terms, that their behavior is completely unacceptable..

109 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I get the desire not to engage in full-scale war...but we're okay with chemical weapons? [View all] truebrit71 Aug 2013 OP

The talking points have been distributed, haven't they? nt Dreamer Tatum Aug 2013 #1

yeah, the few who are pro attack are pulling out all the stops on cheap cali Aug 2013 #3

Hmm, so I ask a serious question and I'm "pro attack"? truebrit71 Aug 2013 #14

Hey, don't feel bad. MADem Aug 2013 #25

Yes, we can "let-this-shit-happen-without-doing-SOMETHING-about-it cali Aug 2013 #35

Do no harm? Tell that to the innocents that we're gassed to death... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #40

We use chemical weapons and we make war and kill people. that's just fact. cali Aug 2013 #42

Most of us are not pro-attack. Many of us are anti-attack yet not spouting Bush-era narratives KittyWampus Aug 2013 #46

Why is the idea of someone thinking through a problem so objectionable to you? BainsBane Aug 2013 #6

The opposite of thinking is what's going on. nt Dreamer Tatum Aug 2013 #8

No, every post where someone looks to explore an issue BainsBane Aug 2013 #12

Trying to gin up support for an attack Dreamer Tatum Aug 2013 #16

Please show me where I was trying to "gin up support for an attack"... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #21

will you state unequivocally that you're not? mike_c Aug 2013 #33

Absolutely I will. I am not trying to gin up support for an attack. truebrit71 Aug 2013 #37

thank you.... mike_c Aug 2013 #39

Sure, I can see that...but I am not 'pro-war' by any stretch of the imagination... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #44

What a tawdry tactic. Shall I ask you why peace is so objectionable to you? It's the same shitty Bluenorthwest Aug 2013 #17

It isn't BainsBane Aug 2013 #23

That's what this thread is supposed to be about... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #47

I could see that BainsBane Aug 2013 #73

I know...and I was quite surprised to be honest... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #77

People reject any question or information BainsBane Aug 2013 #79

Claiming that thought is objectionable to others is bullshit just like saying you hate peace. Bluenorthwest Aug 2013 #48

You're hardly in a position to accuse others BainsBane Aug 2013 #65

And there is more recriminatioin of others. Good stuff. Bluenorthwest Aug 2013 #102

By the way, there is no peace BainsBane Aug 2013 #30

Not to me they haven't.... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #15

"And if someone suspects you've been told what to say, DENY IT." Dreamer Tatum Aug 2013 #18

No-one has "told me" what to say... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #24

it's possible to reject intervening in Syria w/o resorting to Bush-era narratives. KittyWampus Aug 2013 #43

you mean, like agent orange, napalm, depleted uranium, white phosphorus--you know, the stuff THIS niyad Aug 2013 #2

There are other options other than military quinnox Aug 2013 #4

What do you think could be effective? BainsBane Aug 2013 #7

You putting on fatigues and carrying a rifle would be very effective Dreamer Tatum Aug 2013 #11

You assume anyone who wants to think through options supports war BainsBane Aug 2013 #19

Where do you stand on cutting your pinkies off? Dreamer Tatum Aug 2013 #22

Yes, I can see your foreign policy acumen truly is impressive BainsBane Aug 2013 #26

What a nasty response--and factually untrue as well. MADem Aug 2013 #36

Saddam gassed the Kurds, 4 months later Rumsfeld was shaking his hand, sent by Reagan to Bluenorthwest Aug 2013 #50

Yes, and what's your point? Really--What. Is. Your. POINT? MADem Aug 2013 #68

It takes a moron to miss the point. LWolf Aug 2013 #89

Look who's talking! That was probably the worst attempt at conflation I've ever seen! MADem Aug 2013 #90

Heh. LWolf Aug 2013 #93

You don't think you should be feeding flames...yet you do it. MADem Aug 2013 #95

You are right. LWolf Aug 2013 #97

Rumsfeld was acting as an official of the US government, same government that Bluenorthwest Aug 2013 #103

Rumsfeld is not "the decider." MADem Aug 2013 #105

my reaction to that is we became complicit qazplm Aug 2013 #106

I agree. There might be other solutions. So let's talk about them. DevonRex Aug 2013 #71

Iraq gassed thousands of people and our reaction was to send Rumsfeld to shake Saddam's hand. Bluenorthwest Aug 2013 #5

No, we aren't. We don't trust our own government after Junior lied. IdaBriggs Aug 2013 #9

People Want Black Or White Here... KharmaTrain Aug 2013 #61

Thank you for one of the nicest compliments I have *ever* received. IdaBriggs Aug 2013 #83

Well Earned And Deserved... KharmaTrain Aug 2013 #92

We're okay with our chemical weapons Capt. Obvious Aug 2013 #10

Does it really matter if they die from a bullet, explosion or poison? Lee-Lee Aug 2013 #13

That's a very valid point... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #28

The vast majority of nations bans landmines, we refuse to ban them and use them like mad. Bluenorthwest Aug 2013 #55

I know the US, specifically Bush iirc, wouldn't sign on the the landmine ban... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #70

Bush? He's not been President for some time, Obama has also kept landmines. Bluenorthwest Aug 2013 #101

No Lee-Lee Aug 2013 #91

I'm more ok with them than nukes whatchamacallit Aug 2013 #20

A bunch of responses come to mind. Jackpine Radical Aug 2013 #27

...and the potential knock-on effects of a military strike make it even more complicated... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #31

Sometimes the best available response is not to respond. Jackpine Radical Aug 2013 #45

And that's where the frustration sets in... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #64

Did you worry about the dead children we killed in the first drone attacks? Rex Aug 2013 #29

Absolutely I did, and still do whenever Obama uses Droney to collaterally kill more... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #32

frankly, I think it does.... mike_c Aug 2013 #38

That's one hell of a false dichotomy you have there. n/t X_Digger Aug 2013 #34

Care to explain what you mean by that? truebrit71 Aug 2013 #49

Either engage militarily to some degree, or you're okay with chemical weapons. X_Digger Aug 2013 #51

Military engagement wasn't the only option...a "response" of some degree was... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #58

"but we're okay with chemical weapons? " -- did a gremlin jump up and commandeer your keyboard? X_Digger Aug 2013 #60

That is one part of the OP.... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #62

I don't see you editing the OP. X_Digger Aug 2013 #67

I didn't/haven't edited the OP? truebrit71 Aug 2013 #72

So you are comfortable picking sides in a Civil War? Savannahmann Aug 2013 #41

Not at all... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #53

Then the only solution is.... Savannahmann Aug 2013 #57

"I like the alternatives even less"...I totally agree... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #59

I think it's hard to figure out what we can accomplish... BlueCheese Aug 2013 #52

The propaganda has no credibiliity anymore. nt woo me with science Aug 2013 #54

sorry but this kind of false equivalency is ridiculous. We are not the worlds policemen bowens43 Aug 2013 #56

if we have a moral obligation, it would be to deal with the deaths our own country unleashes loveandlight Aug 2013 #63

Agreed.. truebrit71 Aug 2013 #66

I'll Answer You Straight RobinA Aug 2013 #69

Thanks for your answer...I particularly like the Niagra Falls analogy... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #76

Awful thread LittleBlue Aug 2013 #74

But that's sort of my point... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #80

No, it would not signal tacit approval LittleBlue Aug 2013 #82

I'm not projecting anything on anyone... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #84

And there are consequences LittleBlue Aug 2013 #85

Sanctions and international isolation haven't worked up to this point... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #86

They haven't worked because Assad is fighting a war for LittleBlue Aug 2013 #87

If that is what you meant to ask, your OP is poorly phrased. Bluenorthwest Aug 2013 #100

The US is not the best example to be playing world policeman! B Calm Aug 2013 #75

I think that a number of the people completely against... NCTraveler Aug 2013 #78

There are a lot of things that I find not okay Live and Learn Aug 2013 #81

Of course we're okay with chemical weapons. LWolf Aug 2013 #88

Are those the only alternatives we have? I don't think so. nt bemildred Aug 2013 #94

I reject the distinction between chemical and conventional weapons MNBrewer Aug 2013 #96

"Why is this 1400 somehow special in the >100,000 killed already?" Thank you. scarletwoman Aug 2013 #98

almost the entire world disagrees with you qazplm Aug 2013 #107

False dilema, much. 99Forever Aug 2013 #99

We have used chemical weapons. former9thward Aug 2013 #104

Well... Spider Jerusalem Aug 2013 #108

Do you want your government to help Syrians? ocpagu Sep 2013 #109