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]LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)87. They haven't worked because Assad is fighting a war for
his survival. All consequences short of death will not stop him, including these stupid operations Obama has planned.
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