General Discussion

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)

87. This creates big problems for those of you who want to continue honoring the Saudis and others

Fri Feb 6, 2015, 11:57 AM

Feb 2015

who practice atrocities against others. If ISIS is so bad we must launch all out war then how the fuck is the Kingdom so good that our President must pay homage to them? Is that not legitimizing their atrocities? Is it not a sort of approval for killing gay people and whipping writers and all that good stuff?
These ethics, they are either situational or they are simple endorsements of atrocities by 'approved allies'.

The deep anti gay dogmas of America's right and center religious folks cause them to cheer for the Saudis, and yet they want full war against others for the same sort of shit. Situational ethics are not ethics, they are agenda.
When you make a list of reasons we must make war, that creates another list of things you are saying require no response at all. Kill the gays? Fine, just don't kill a Japanese journalist.
Hearing our leadership preach about their faiths and praise the Saudi kingdom makes me unwilling to support any efforts against 'ISIS' and it makes me feel utterly unwanted in this Party.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

113 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Laser Focus 2-3-15 - ISIS, Some Fellow Liberals and War [View all] stevenleser Feb 2015 OP

K&R eom MohRokTah Feb 2015 #1

So if the US and UN have targeted funding for ISIS, why are these guys still sitting on thrones? leveymg Feb 2015 #2

Here is UN Security Council Resolution 2170. You can read it for yourself stevenleser Feb 2015 #3

Resolution dated 15 AUG 14 - I repeat the question, what should be done? leveymg Feb 2015 #5

There is a universal freeze on their assets. What do you think isn't being done? As the Syrian stevenleser Feb 2015 #7

There is broad agreement that "substantial" funds are still reaching ISIS from KSA and GCC states leveymg Feb 2015 #12

From the link you provided... stevenleser Feb 2015 #14

Do the numbers. Oil accounts for about 40%, that leaves a big hole in the Caliphate's budget leveymg Feb 2015 #15

Do what numbers? Do you have a number for ISIS's accountant? Do you have their Quicken account? stevenleser Feb 2015 #16

Believe it or not, they issue annual reports. Like any other foreign-held corporation. leveymg Feb 2015 #17

Those do not provide the basis for analyzing your claims. nt stevenleser Feb 2015 #21

If you say so, Steven. leveymg Feb 2015 #22

Anecdotes in an article are not a balance sheet or list of income. nt stevenleser Feb 2015 #23

You should do your homework before you post on these issues, Steven. leveymg Feb 2015 #19

I did. My point stands. Provide their detailed sheet, not anecdotes in an article. nt stevenleser Feb 2015 #20

Links in FT article here - do you read Arabic, Steven? leveymg Feb 2015 #24

I'm not doing homework to validate your claims, that's your job. nt stevenleser Feb 2015 #25

You haven't given any sources or figures to back up your claims. leveymg Feb 2015 #26

I didn't make any claims based on financial figures, you did. nt stevenleser Feb 2015 #31

You wrote ISIS is "making money from selling Syrian and ... Iraqi oil" and a "universal freeze" on leveymg Feb 2015 #34

You give the OP too much credit. Rex Feb 2015 #85

Note in particular the comments by the Syrian who sits on the UN Sec Council... stevenleser Feb 2015 #4

What is your point, here? leveymg Feb 2015 #6

Why are you asking question #5 about their funding if the Syrians explain here how they are making stevenleser Feb 2015 #8

They're getting everything trucked in from Turkey CJCRANE Feb 2015 #48

"there is an opinion on the left that if the US simply leaves people alone..." wyldwolf Feb 2015 #9

Well said. Love this comment. nt stevenleser Feb 2015 #11

the fire department tends to use water zipplewrath Feb 2015 #28

the theory of blowback guillaumeb Feb 2015 #29

The possibility of blowback always exists with violence at the micro or macro level. As I noted in stevenleser Feb 2015 #32

blowback redux guillaumeb Feb 2015 #50

+1 Jamaal510 Feb 2015 #37

Too many are invested in the "We suck!" narrative. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2015 #10

Yep, group A may have done something wrong, but we can't do anything because "US Bad" stevenleser Feb 2015 #13

Exactly. Waiting For Everyman Feb 2015 #27

Not exactly. ISIS is evil but wouldn't likely exist without our actions. Actions with similar TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #41

well said. bigtree Feb 2015 #46

Word. KG Feb 2015 #55

+100000000000 woo me with science Feb 2015 #110

Very well said Oilwellian Feb 2015 #113

Exactly get the red out Feb 2015 #81

Excellent post! True at every level. Lint Head Feb 2015 #18

I hate, hate, hate, hate war. BUT in this case I think you are all right about what we and the world jwirr Feb 2015 #30

So if it's not on video it doesn't matter? CJCRANE Feb 2015 #33

this is a classic argument in favor of preemptive war - a Bushian defense of military intervention bigtree Feb 2015 #35

You so wonderfully make my point. You make a superficial analysis to say "this is all the same" stevenleser Feb 2015 #36

you make my point bigtree Feb 2015 #38

LOL. Do you even get how ridiculous your position is? Arguing Iraq/Saddam 2003 is the same as ISIS stevenleser Feb 2015 #39

ridicule bigtree Feb 2015 #42

There is no point to which to reply. You are making a ridiculous posit. Good luck with it. nt stevenleser Feb 2015 #43

good luck with your 'ridiculous' new interventionist role bigtree Feb 2015 #45

Nothing new. I am for interventions where its justified and against those that aren't. nt stevenleser Feb 2015 #56

"Justified" sounds like some kind of naive moral crusade. Marr Feb 2015 #61

Which post WW2 US military interventions Deny and Shred Feb 2015 #84

Yes, the trend is clear. CJCRANE Feb 2015 #40

we had to save the Vietnamese from communism... bigtree Feb 2015 #44

excellent guillaumeb Feb 2015 #51

It will be different time is said every time and almost never in living memory has it been. TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #53

It is the same is also said each time just as you are doing. nt stevenleser Feb 2015 #54

And if each of us had to live on betting their respective positions you'd have to hock your organs TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #62

The OP is entirely superficial. Orsino Feb 2015 #106

From Gilda Radner...."There's always somthin'". Indeed. But once you're committed to Empire, the libdem4life Feb 2015 #47

One quibble: ISIS is already getting their asses kicked on all fronts. So why change tactics? nt ieoeja Feb 2015 #49

Garbage whatchamacallit Feb 2015 #52

Elizabeth Warren has already "endorsed it". Tarheel_Dem Feb 2015 #57

K and R for good old-fashioned sense. hifiguy Feb 2015 #58

I don't know what to do Prism Feb 2015 #59

While I have no sympathy for groups like ISIS whatsoever, I'm also not inclined to engage in Marr Feb 2015 #60

You're a Liberal? Octafish Feb 2015 #63

Steven has been on Fox News many times. Leser is listed as a "Fox News Insider" leveymg Feb 2015 #64

Thank you. Quite the CV, especially the resignation of Sarah Palin part. Octafish Feb 2015 #67

Yep, I was there for a debate on Healthcare reform and suddenly Palin resigned. And they needed stevenleser Feb 2015 #71

I'm not being a smart ass here: can you elaborate on what was "stirring" about deutsey Feb 2015 #90

You will have to ask the person who wrote the bio. I didn't write it. nt stevenleser Feb 2015 #91

I'll pass, thanks. deutsey Feb 2015 #92

Nope. I have better things to do with my time. nt stevenleser Feb 2015 #93

Like giving stirring commentary about Sara Palin? deutsey Feb 2015 #95

Nope, she resigned several years ago. I talk about things happening as they happen. nt stevenleser Feb 2015 #97

Keep on truckin', dude deutsey Feb 2015 #99

Yes, ply your feeble minded insults elsewhere. nt stevenleser Feb 2015 #100

Um, that wasn't meant as an insult. deutsey Feb 2015 #101

Do you know who you're calling ''feeble minded''? Octafish Feb 2015 #105

LOL, that's not what that means. You get listed there for having a particularly hot debate. stevenleser Feb 2015 #70

On Election Night, 2012, Steve interviewed me on his radio show for my work on behalf of the Obama msanthrope Feb 2015 #107

He plays a liberal on TV Fumesucker Feb 2015 #65

Is that sort of like how the Washington Generals "play" the Harlem Globe Trotters? leveymg Feb 2015 #66

You mean like my desired candidate winning the Presidency the last two times? stevenleser Feb 2015 #73

You mean like the candidate who said he was a Liberal, then as president wasn't. Octafish Feb 2015 #103

The plays part is what isn't getting across. Octafish Feb 2015 #68

I say exactly what I believe. And that happens to coincide with what most Liberals believe. nt stevenleser Feb 2015 #72

Any actions to back up the words you say you say? Octafish Feb 2015 #74

You mean like my desired candidate winning the Presidency the last two times? nt stevenleser Feb 2015 #75

No, I mean you stating you are a Liberal. Octafish Feb 2015 #77

And my answer is the same. The majority of Liberals and I support the same candidates. nt stevenleser Feb 2015 #79

It still isn't a definition. Octafish Feb 2015 #104

Not really. Rex Feb 2015 #94

Having been on his radio show, detailing my work as an voter protection attorney, I msanthrope Feb 2015 #108

Yes, I am and my views are shared by most Liberals. stevenleser Feb 2015 #69

Show where I'm wrong on what I post and I'll apologize. Octafish Feb 2015 #76

I'm not going spend time going through your posts. I've seen enough to know you're wrong on most stevenleser Feb 2015 #80

In other words, you can't find anything wrong with what I post. Octafish Feb 2015 #83

A real journalist might, but a political hack? Rex Feb 2015 #89

Steve Leser was glad to have me on his show on Election Night, 2012, where I detailed msanthrope Feb 2015 #109

LOL! A political hack and nothing more. Rex Feb 2015 #86

I'm glad that I don't appeal to you. It means I am doing something right. stevenleser Feb 2015 #96

This is such a relief to read get the red out Feb 2015 #78

ISIS is doing the same shit JonLP24 Feb 2015 #82

The OP cannot go out of a very narrow narrative and your issue doesn't fit. Rex Feb 2015 #88

This creates big problems for those of you who want to continue honoring the Saudis and others Bluenorthwest Feb 2015 #87

The simple answer is that the Saudis are not engaging in wars of conquest where ISIS is. stevenleser Feb 2015 #98

the simple answer does not go far enough guillaumeb Feb 2015 #102

The Saudi Royals are too rich to do their own wars. They pay the peasants (IS) and mercenaries (US) leveymg Feb 2015 #111

Kick Cha Feb 2015 #112