Obama: We have a moral obligation to end the slaughter and ensure a stable Syria

"Obama: We have a moral obligation to end the slaughter and ensure a stable Syria"

My problem with this is "moral obligation" and "slaughter".

Shouldnt it be a moral obligation to NOT kill the innocent?
I.E drone strikes slaughtering killing children.

How about having a moral obligation to NOT send troops into harms way for no good reason.
And no,questing for empire,oil,poppie fields,lithium diposits are not good reasons.
And neither are currency wars.

Where was the moral obligation in Darfur or Sudan?
Wheres the moral obligation to stand up and to Israel,when it comes to Palestine/West Bank/Gaza strip?
Or even China.

Obama knows nothing about "moral".
But he does know about obligation,to the fed,Millitary industrial complex,and banksters.

Mr. President has an odd set of morals.
Not only odd, he is also very inconsistent in
they way he deems some issues moralistic and others not.
As if he has some hidden agenda, that becomes more
apparent as time passes.

reply to post by sunnybrae


Your avatar took me back to a more peaceful time when the milkman in the late '50s and early '60s used to bring fresh dairy products in glass containers directly to our home from the dairy and leave them in the little portal next to the back door. [Today the PC term would be the milk person, though that job went out of existence long ago] It seemed a more peaceful time except for the frequent atom bomb drills where we were made to hide under our elementary school wooden desks for protection against the feared soviet ICBM missile attack as though Rochester Wisconsin would be a target! LOL

Back to reality: I agree with the OP. The president's, congress's, and the senate's first responsibility is right here at home. Clean up Washington DC and the federal government before you even think about dealing with anyone else's dirty laundry.

Originally posted by camaro68ss
I say that’s fine. If Obama wants to go to war, He needs to lead on the battlefield just like Washington, Andrew Jackson, Napoleon, or Alexandra did.

I bet you if all leaders were forced to lead at the frontlines, I have a feeling we would not have as many wars.

edit on 9-5-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

I strongly agree, please Obama, send your own children or yourself to die for nothing instead of ours.

Govts are only representative of the People, and reflects the People's will - on what the People will do in their everyday life.

Suppose you have a problem in the office and is rushing back halfway through lunch, but along the way, you see a kid knocked down by a RUNAWAY truck, do you tell yourself, say screw it, let someone handle it to justify your continued rush for self centred reasons, OR, do you stop, pick up the child and quickly send the child to the hospital, to save a life?

The answer is a no brainer to humans. Only animals say differently. No need to distract, derail, or deflect from that simple question or give a wall of text on pathetic lame excuses for justification of your self centredness.

Today, a 100 innocent men, women and babies will die as the Syrian genocidal massacres by its insane monarch continues on, as a daily average for those who wish to keep the score.

We mankind most certainly have problems on our own hands - mouths to feed, jobs to find, items to own, bills to pay, etc. But all those issues will come due to the choices we made in life, however, it will not snuff out our lives, as we are in control and do have the ability to deal with it in our own time and our own way.

Wish I can say the same for our 100 daily innocent fellow brothers and sisters in Syria whom will soon die....... with us saying to hell with them.......the way one would say screw it to a child knocked down by a runaway vehicle left alone in the middle of the road......

i predict a coup by our military...


something will be done to stop the treason.

Yes, we have a moral obligation to help Syria, send billions a year in foreign aid to Israel, and play world police while we're 17 trillion in debt. We have a moral obligation to help EVERYONE but Americans. People lose their house and live on the street? More money to Israel! People lose their job? Let more illegal immigrants in and send more jobs to China!

As Rome burns...

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


You can't impose regime change every time there's civil unrest in a country.
and even if you could, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya aren't exactly glowing recommendations for that course of action are they?

Never mind the fact that with a few hundred twitter accounts, some blogs, guns and a few grainy camera-phones you can produce a very convincing fake civil war...

As others have said if it was about humanitarianism we'd be getting involved in lots of places right now - but it's not, it's about denying Russia a foothold in the middle east, that's the main reason Syria is on the list.

reply to post by MaxSteiner


Thanks for your reply and attempt, or should I say, a deflection to the question I posed.

I am not asking you for an opinion on a complex international problem that you obviously have nothing knowledgeable about and severely limited it its outlook.

I only ask a simple question, a common ground question that any human can answer, if that is, he/she, is a human. It is from common grounds that solutions can be found, the very foundations necessary.

reply to post by neo96

"we have a moral obligation to end the slaughter, so lets go slaughter some more people!"

problem

reaction

solution

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Govts are only representative of the People, and reflects the People's will - on what the People will do in their everyday life.

Suppose you have a problem in the office and is rushing back halfway through lunch, but along the way, you see a kid knocked down by a RUNAWAY truck, do you tell yourself, say screw it, let someone handle it to justify your continued rush for self centred reasons, OR, do you stop, pick up the child and quickly send the child to the hospital, to save a life?

The answer is a no brainer to humans. Only animals say differently. No need to distract, derail, or deflect from that simple question or give a wall of text on pathetic lame excuses for justification of your self centredness.

Today, a 100 innocent men, women and babies will die as the Syrian genocidal massacres by its insane monarch continues on, as a daily average for those who wish to keep the score.

We mankind most certainly have problems on our own hands - mouths to feed, jobs to find, items to own, bills to pay, etc. But all those issues will come due to the choices we made in life, however, it will not snuff out our lives, as we are in control and do have the ability to deal with it in our own time and our own way.

Wish I can say the same for our 100 daily innocent fellow brothers and sisters in Syria whom will soon die....... with us saying to hell with them.......the way one would say screw it to a child knocked down by a runaway vehicle left alone in the middle of the road......

That is a straw man of a question. The situation is not the same, at all. A more proper analogy is to ask yourself "is it proper to go next door to someone else's house, kick the door in, and shoot the inhabitants because you don't like the way they are running their household?"

We didn't just walk by Syria on our way home from work and notice runaway trucks. This is a planned destabilization, and invasion of THEIR sovereignty. It's not something we just happened across on a public thoroughfare.

Originally posted by Gazrok
More like, "We have a moral obligation to eliminating Russia's last remaining foothold in the Middle East".

Abbreviated for brevity, but fully noted.

There has to be SOMETHING we're not seeing or being told here. Has to be some real REASON for it...especially if it involves arming terrorists.

To the latter issue first Gazrok: likely noise for the goose. With Al-Q
being US/NATO's pet pit bull and failing miserably, I smell a big fish flag
soon to blame on Assad again. I just hope it isn't chemo-- been there.
Like a blanket party thrown by those BIG orcs with 2x4's.

And the turned over startoff statement couldn't have been a more accurate
Zbignewism. The answer to your own 'something' has always been the
obvious objective-- Syrian runways for our smaller fast guys to pummel Iran's
back door. Isn't anything hard and smooth north of Baghdad gravel now??

Back to the midgame in prograss..
or better yet supressing those nasty little S300 mobile platforms in the back door.
Remember this guy from S. Ossetia? Nogovitsyn, aka Putin's policeman.

I'll keep saying it: this is literally the last guy on the planet I want inside Iran's
wire with G-A birds that fast AND accurate. If you also get wind of The Banana
Splits clustering up in Tabriz or worse Urmia, grab a quart of KY.
It would mean The Blonde got his range upgrade, and he could cover the whole party...

K-B4 pin. I love to hate chess, and the Persians invented the sucker. And
oh yeah, strictly to the subject matter...
If either side of the partisan aisle for a presidential administration actually
cared about people I don't think they'd go through so many.
WTH, all we should have to do is take Turkey out to dinner and we can
launch from Ankara again. Forget it I'm just tired of watching bribery.

reply to post by FreedomEntered



CNN Breaking News:We support terrorists, CNN on the same side as the terrorists.

For three years now CNN has being doing the same propaganda as they were with Libya and no thank you.

reply to post by InTheFlesh1980


I am surprised Turkey isn't on the list.

Originally posted by nenothtu
the same link indicates that the opposition is being supported by the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, with the approval of the US, so it's not like we are the Lone Ranger in pursuit of this lunacy.

No, the Lone Ranger is not alone..he has Britain, and France etc etc

So, the Lone Ranger has his "Tonto" and as we all know "Tonto" in Spanish means "Fool or idiot".


Yes, the USA again has it's idiots on standby....

At this point in time we are probably one of least morally fit countries around.To claim to be so is verging on the insane.

Let them fix their own mess and let's bring our people back home and fix our own mess here. This is not quite as bad as the bs that Bush and company pulled, but it is inching ever closer by the day.

Originally posted by sharkman
At this point in time we are probably one of least morally fit countries around.To claim to be so is verging on the insane.

Let them fix their own mess and let's bring our people back home and fix our own mess here. This is not quite as bad as the bs that Bush and company pulled, but it is inching ever closer by the day.

Short but to the point...if i could i'd give you 5 *****. But i cant.

The US needs to fix it's own shi* before it goes spending another 7 trillion on a war thats bollocks..

reply to post by CirqueDeTruth


Would it be called slaughter if it was Americans being killed here by our leaders?

You knew that cat was out of the bag when Obama said the line in the sand was crossed when Syria used chemical weapons.....then OPPPS, the Free Syrian Army used them. Guess that is why Obama has been silent on that issue.

Also, likely mentioned in another thread, the entire Benghazi episode was to silence that ambassador who was going to whistleblow that the Obama administration was feeding weapons to the rebels in Libya, like the administration was feeding chemical weapons to the FSA to try and pin on Assad.


Been saying this for years - let the middle east take care of their own affairs. No involvement in civil wars!

Originally posted by Tattiio
reply to post by CirqueDeTruth

 

Would it be called slaughter if it was Americans being killed here by our leaders?

Slaughter is slaughter - no matter the place.



Cirque