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]IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)83. Thank you for one of the nicest compliments I have *ever* received.
You make some very valid points; I especially like your issues with an Arab coalition (which I don't think will happen because Assad is part of an unofficial monarchy situation with fake voting thrown in as cover, and the other countries do not want the "democracy" stuff spreading).
I know it is unpopular, but I am kind of big on "use poison gas / chemical weapons / nuclear weapons" means we do step in and implement regime change as Planetary Police Officers. I find state sanctioned slaughter to be abhorrent; and yes, I am good with any little dictator ANYWHERE facing appropriate action if those lines are crossed. The fact there are no consequences (remember Pinochet?) seems to embolden the little tyrants.
I am an optimist ...
Regardless, I appreciate the fact we can DISCUSS these things here.
We cannot let the evil Bush did stop us from acting in appropriate and humane ways to help our fellow human beings.
The world is a complicated place. I have to trust someone (and their chosen support team) to investigate and make decisions about things outside of the scope of my knowledge and control. I trust Obama. I *never* trusted Junior.
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