General Discussion

BainsBane

(57,757 posts)

23. It isn't

Fri Aug 30, 2013, 12:04 PM

Aug 2013

This is exactly the problem. The idea of thought is entirely objectionable. It's not a tactic. I don't support armed intervention. What I want to do is explore the problem, and the idea of actually thinking is what appear to be most offensive. Would it be too much to actually ask what my position is?

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:

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