General Discussion

disidoro01

(302 posts)

61. Absolutely clueless

Thu Sep 12, 2013, 05:12 PM

Sep 2013

But this is the thinking that happens with peace loving folks. Obama is only targeting military installations. Have you seen the plans and target lists? I have not but I also know from our actions in other countries we kill civilians. Just because we don't mean it does not make it less real. As recently as Libya we have done this.
Not a red herring. Syria and Russia have defense contracts. We do not have the authority to tell them or demand from them that they can not buy or sell to whomever they wish. Much like they can not do the same. We have the CIA funneling arms to lord knows who in Syria and I know we are not getting paid nor do we have contracts.
As much as it sucks what Assad is doing, we don't have the right or obligation to kill Syrians.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

90 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Assad: We'll give up chemical weapons once U.S. stops arming rebels [View all] orenbus Sep 2013 OP

A lot of non starts to these talks. morningfog Sep 2013 #1

The deal is between the US and Russia. Barack_America Sep 2013 #63

Exactly! Andy823 Sep 2013 #80

then no deal MFM008 Sep 2013 #2

Why do we have to arm rebels? orenbus Sep 2013 #3

So a government can be installed that will listen to us better. n/t 1awake Sep 2013 #4

How disidoro01 Sep 2013 #6

Well I guess it depends on who you ask. 1awake Sep 2013 #8

I agree disidoro01 Sep 2013 #10

So that's the criterion? KamaAina Sep 2013 #49

First, to be clear... I'm on your side of this argument. 1awake Sep 2013 #51

I would have used one of these KamaAina Sep 2013 #52

Thanks, I didn't know that! Ill use it from now on. n/t 1awake Sep 2013 #54

That worked so well in Iran... n/t backscatter712 Sep 2013 #83

yes disidoro01 Sep 2013 #5

We don't. I think shutting off the flow of arms to all sides would get them to the negotiating table pampango Sep 2013 #7

I think you're right. Common sense - how refreshing! n/t Raksha Sep 2013 #33

Except Russia sees no reason to accept those terms. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #50

Russia certainly intends to keep Assad in power. I am surprised this war was not over in short order pampango Sep 2013 #60

Assad was against preconditions before he was for them :) pinboy3niner Sep 2013 #69

Agree with some of the things you say orenbus Sep 2013 #85

+1000 nt Andy823 Sep 2013 #81

There's money in it. Skink Sep 2013 #46

We should definitely not be intervening in the Syrian civil war MNBrewer Sep 2013 #17

Hey, Assad? Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #9

You do disidoro01 Sep 2013 #11

Such a counter proposal would also be inappropriate and should be met with derision as a stalling ta Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #14

Absolutely clueless disidoro01 Sep 2013 #61

Yes. Clueless is how I would describe Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #62

Your warmongering disidoro01 Sep 2013 #65

Should we bomb the rebels too? former9thward Sep 2013 #71

That U.N. Report says field testimony--not evidence or proof the rebels used the gas Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #72

There is far more info in that report than anything the U.S. has given. former9thward Sep 2013 #76

Post removed Post removed Sep 2013 #87

Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT. bananas Sep 2013 #90

Civilians would die in a US strike. morningfog Sep 2013 #89

says the defender of the war criminal Henry Kissinger cali Sep 2013 #13

I'm. Ot defending Kissinger. I'm defending Kerry choosing to meet with him as a Russian expert. big Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #16

Why do you care if we arm the rebels? orenbus Sep 2013 #20

That's something for the Syrians to work out themselves, Raksha Sep 2013 #23

Assad should not be allowed to succeed in his blood drenched crackdown on his own people Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #24

Arming the Rebels, what then? orenbus Sep 2013 #41

"I don't like war or people dying" NuclearDem Sep 2013 #34

It is pretty simple for the simple-minded. More bluster from the keyboard commandos. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2013 #29

No we're not. The WH knows Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #55

Since you've been wrong about virtually every other twist and turn in this saga Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #58

I'm worng? Weren't you just recently skipping with delight that Putin had been brought to heel? Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #73

What happened to "We dont have any chemical weapons". bunnies Sep 2013 #12

Double oops! DontTreadOnMe Sep 2013 #28

The debate was over whether Assad had used, not that he had them. NuclearDem Sep 2013 #30

Charlie Rose: 'Calm' Assad Denied Possession of Chemical Weapons bunnies Sep 2013 #36

I know Assad denied it. The poster seemed to imply there was a contingent here that did so as well. NuclearDem Sep 2013 #38

oh. Gotcha. Sorry. I missed that. bunnies Sep 2013 #39

No worries, it happens. NuclearDem Sep 2013 #40

DING DING DING.. give this person a cigar Peacetrain Sep 2013 #31

See, arming the rebels in the midst of talks about disarming chem weapons was brlliant DJ13 Sep 2013 #15

Diplomatic outrage won't change anti-war sentiments in America orenbus Sep 2013 #22

Please be careful what you say about the United States being attacked directly. Raksha Sep 2013 #27

Hmm orenbus Sep 2013 #32

I'm saying that a false-flag op directed at the U.S. itself isn't impossible to imagine, Raksha Sep 2013 #35

It is illegal for the USA to arm the rebels, so we know that's not happening Coyotl Sep 2013 #18

Yep, a person couldn't find a precedent no matter how far back they looked. Not even to Reagan. 1-Old-Man Sep 2013 #56

Or Ike. NuclearDem Sep 2013 #67

B-I-N-G-O. This was an easy prediction to make, so cthulu2016 Sep 2013 #19

I knew that was coming. He's calling Obama's bluff...and why wouldn't he? n/t Raksha Sep 2013 #21

Strikes have no teeth. orenbus Sep 2013 #25

Hell, we arm the world - just changing who gets what when... polichick Sep 2013 #26

Then the US should call on Assad to hold free and fair elections. Cali_Democrat Sep 2013 #37

Free and fair elections would result in a jihadist victory FarCenter Sep 2013 #43

Or in other words... orenbus Sep 2013 #44

So they shouldnt be allowed to choose their fate via vote because some folks won't like the outcome? Cali_Democrat Sep 2013 #45

There's no reason for us to help them have elections that will turn out to our disliking. FarCenter Sep 2013 #47

Now there's some American exceptionalism. "There's no reason for us to help them have elections pampango Sep 2013 #68

American exceptionalism should not be code for lethal force orenbus Sep 2013 #84

They should be allowed to choose their fate, but the better question is should we be involved? orenbus Sep 2013 #48

Or Morsi in Egypt KamaAina Sep 2013 #53

But it turns out a great way to delegitimize these Islamist groups is to give them power and Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #59

So let me see if I got this straight... orenbus Sep 2013 #74

lol orenbus Sep 2013 #78

Hamas is not in power in Gaza? former9thward Sep 2013 #75

Their constitution bans parties based on religious affiliation. David__77 Sep 2013 #77

I predict it'll go something like this: Guy Whitey Corngood Sep 2013 #42

Well, it does sort of beg the question, are we arming the Rebels? If we are its news to me. 1-Old-Man Sep 2013 #57

Here you go orenbus Sep 2013 #64

Well then, he has a point, doesn't he? 1-Old-Man Sep 2013 #79

And training them....just like we trained Bin laden Marrah_G Sep 2013 #66

We didn't train bin Laden. Bolo Boffin Sep 2013 #70

Afganistan orenbus Sep 2013 #86

Awesome moment in that picture. Bolo Boffin Sep 2013 #88

Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war rug Sep 2013 #82