Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I get the desire not to engage in full-scale war...but we're okay with chemical weapons? [View all]Dreamer Tatum
(10,996 posts)11. You putting on fatigues and carrying a rifle would be very effective
from where I'm sitting, since you seem so bloodthirsty.
Go fight. Don't waste your precious time on us peace hippies who don't understand the amount of skull crackin' that needs doing.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
109 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I get the desire not to engage in full-scale war...but we're okay with chemical weapons? [View all]
truebrit71
Aug 2013
OP
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
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
Claiming that thought is objectionable to others is bullshit just like saying you hate peace.
Bluenorthwest
Aug 2013
#48
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
Saddam gassed the Kurds, 4 months later Rumsfeld was shaking his hand, sent by Reagan to
Bluenorthwest
Aug 2013
#50
Look who's talking! That was probably the worst attempt at conflation I've ever seen!
MADem
Aug 2013
#90
Rumsfeld was acting as an official of the US government, same government that
Bluenorthwest
Aug 2013
#103
Iraq gassed thousands of people and our reaction was to send Rumsfeld to shake Saddam's hand.
Bluenorthwest
Aug 2013
#5
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
...and the potential knock-on effects of a military strike make it even more complicated...
truebrit71
Aug 2013
#31
Absolutely I did, and still do whenever Obama uses Droney to collaterally kill more...
truebrit71
Aug 2013
#32
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
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
"Why is this 1400 somehow special in the >100,000 killed already?" Thank you.
scarletwoman
Aug 2013
#98