The poster made the argument it was our duty
What is our duty to the people of the world? Are we so damaged by the lies from Bush, et. al, that we are taking a superficial view of Syria and willing to turn a blind eye to the use of WMDs?
Are we sticking our heads in the sand and abrogating our responsibility?
When another poster explained
So I guess we could start bombing a whole lot of the world, including ourselves. We are guilty of proliferating a genocidal weapon of cancer-causing radiation with all the Depleted Uranium that our government used in Serbia and Iraq, and is still using in Afghanistan. Unlike sarin, Depleted Uranium will still be causing health problems a hundred years from now.
Or are illegal weapons only worthy of revenge-style actions when utilized by other nations?
The poster answered with what appeared to be complete denial
But, there are differences. There are differences between creating, selling bullets and shooting them into a young child. We all know that difference.
Where is the line? I guess that is the question we are debating right now--at what point will we stand up and say to the Syrian government, "Enough?"
I tried to explain, but I doubt it made any difference
I'm afraid you don't understand what we have done, we've actually USED White Phosphorous and DU
We've used it on many thousands, not hundreds of men women and children, we also kill children all the time by drone because
they are near someone that someone thinks might be exhibiting behavior that could indicate he is a terrorist (AKA signature strikes), or sometimes because a child is among parents that see someone hurt after a wedding party or something was blown up and try to help. why? Because drone operators get bonus points for picking off first responders (a little tactic we copied from Hezbollah that we re-branded "double tap" strikes).
We should post pictures of these children dead from our weapons and compare numbers, perhaps a decent man will see those pictures of the victims of our WMD and "be moved" to DO SOMETHING to show the monsters responsible that there is a line that was crossed and someone has to deter such atrocities, somehow, perhaps by doing something really stupid like blowing up more people, many of which will be innocent American children, why? Because somehow more killing will lead to the end of killing or something and more civilian deaths will show those maniacs what for, damn it.
Define hypocrisy and then thank what ever mythical being you thank that no one is strong enough to try to play Judge Dredd with us the way we are constantly fantasizing about actually being a self appointed Judge Dredd to the world. Often committing atrocities that dwarf even that evil shit Assad in the process because we have some insane idea that the way to help people that are being killed is to blow up, maim, burn to the bone with phosphorous, spread depleted uranium around from our shells with the added bonus of poisoning multiple generations of children and generally just bomb the shit out of them killing civilians the entire time. Why do we think of such things as "humanitarian actions" anyway?
So..... the proposal is to:
"Punish" Assad for killing his people by killing more of his people,
because we have some sort of "moral high ground" and
more death will help the "dead children" (how it will help is quite unclear)
even though that "high ground" is really a mountain of corpses, many of them children we have killed in the process of being "so moral".
Really?
If you buy that line of reasoning then you are insane, hypnotized, or delusional because such rationalizations are insultingly absurd no matter how eloquently you spread the propaganda.
How people fall for it astonishes me.
We have done and do far more than "manufacture bullets" as you put it, we build mountains of dead civilians many of which are children so where DO YOU draw the line? And just how will war help the children when many more will die due to it?
Full context and original post post
= new reply since forum marked as read