Why we SHOULD demand military action on Syria

Are you guys done with your parade of failures
or does someone else wish to be an authority on what can't be done?

In one hundred years,
no one is going to come here and cite a single one of the negative posts,

It will only be known that
when it really mattered,
you failed to demand action.

That the discussion was full of criticism,
conflation, obfustication, inverted logic,
and an overwhelming lack of useful solutions.


Mike

And if we don't strike syria, I'm sure a hundred years from now the population will be saying "WHY OH WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST STRIKE SYRIA WHEN THEY HAD THE CHANCE?"

This is nuttier than a cheese ball.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


I know this question is naive, but with such brutality why is there no call for calm? Why are there no voices leading us towards peace? Even if it's just for show?

I reiterate, is this not a valid alternative to lobbing explosives at people?

Syria be quarantined, nothing goes in or out expect humanitarian aid. Elicit the compliance of the quarantine from neighboring nations: they are either with the world or against it on this point. A joint peace keeping exercise to contain both sides, maintain basic rules of international law, and enforce:

A complete and total ceasefire in Syria. With the weight of Russia on Assad and the weight of the USA on the rebels, a ceasefire is plausible with the weight of the People on congress and the Kremlin. Noncompliance means humanitarian aid ends, the quarantine maintained without exception. The war starves itself out, calm prevails and the truth can be uncovered.

I hope I haven't misinterpreted your thread, to me you're ask 'why we should' just as much as 'why should we.'

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

NO!

What we SHOULD do is demand that our governmental representatives do what the hell we put them in office to do - run OUR country properly.

What we SHOULD demand is that our government stay the hell out of OTHER FOLKS' personal problems.

What we SHOULD do is demand that these goddamned chairborne commandos lead the way, advance the front lines with their OWN precious bodies, and see who the hell is so eager to follow their stupid asses into the fire. Let them get their OWN hands bloody first.

This ain't MY fight, nor is it my son's fight.

What we SHOULD demand is that our government set the example in doing away with chemical weapons first. Do it HERE first, show the rest of the world how it's done. They can start by ceasing to teargas (a chemical weapon) dissidents and protestors. They could start by outlawing pepper spray in government hands.

What we SHOULD demand is that our government set it's OWN house in order, and leave the Syrians to deal with their own headaches.

What we SHOULD demand is that our government STOP supporting our goddamned enemies in this war, much less agitate for assisting them FURTHER by bombing their opposition FOR them.

You know, I've got nothing against fighting and killing MY enemies. Just give me a gun and point me at them. DO NOT, however, try doing that and convincing me that I should fight the enemies of my enemies and thereby make my enemies stronger. You won't like the direction that gun you issue to me gets pointed if you try that.

We hire our government (yes, they are hired hands, and only that - subject to being fired as well) to fix OUR messes and run OUR country. We don't hire them to run around the world stirring #.

Let McCain and Kerry lead the goddamned way. put THEIR boots on the ground in Syria first. I'd pay good money to see THAT!

Historical Fact
U.S. Fires 13 Cruise Missiles at Serbian Targets in Bosnia : Balkans: Weapons launched from ship in Adriatic are aimed at antiaircraft installations that have menaced NATO warplanes. There are many casualties, rebels say.

latimes/ 1995 -09 -11/ news / cruise missiles
September 11, 1995




The back story
In Adam Curtis' documetary Series "The Century of the Self" (4 hours runtime)
he stated that President Clinton had a phone bank that was polling Americans,
and the decision to bomb Bosnia was made by the [color=gold] feelings of people
living in Colorado.

Clinton didn't ask for a vote,
he didn't ask for a conscious decision by the public.
No.

It's not so much the people that are in charge, as it's their feelings

-Century of the Self

But President Obama _has_ asked for a vote.

If someone offers us the sword,
hilt first,
we should take it!

Least everything slips back into polling and rule by emotional manipulation.

youtube / century of the self clip
^Who want's to go back to that?


And the cause! What a cause. The use of
chemical weapons. My brother said "I would
rather be wrong militarily than be involved
with anything like that" Demand Action.

Bring an end to the era of secret wars.

Consciously and with purpose take up the
sword. Or remain in a floating bottomless
world blown about by the wind, always
running from one crisis to the next.

Nothing, will be as important in 100 years
as the Use of Chemical Weapons in an attack
not even the twin towers.



And with that I leave the decision up to
the readers. Remain a sheep in the care
of evil manipulative handlers, or demand
action.



See, it's not that we order our sons and daughters
serving in the military into harms way that upsets
them. It's when we do it half assed. When we
send them to the desert and then change the
channel, forgetting they are there.

That is the result of being manipulated into these
kinds of decisions.

No! Take up the cause,
with purpose,
with intent,
and do not let go!!!!


Mike

Originally posted by JaspersCheese
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

I know this question is naive, but with such brutality why is there no call for calm? Why are there no voices leading us towards peace? Even if it's just for show?

I reiterate, is this not a valid alternative to lobbing explosives at people?

No, you're right,
it is a worthy philosophical question.

But as the saying goes "are we asking the right question?

Why haven't they responded to our calls for calm.
Why do countries keep forcing us to embargo them.
Why get involved with bad actors who keep doing the opposite of what we ask.


Worthy questions all.

But just because Americans are usually THE ONLY ones who will respond
in the positive, does not mean that we should keep jumping in to answer
the question for them. The moment has come for someone else to answer.


Mike

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
Are you guys done with your parade of failures
or does someone else wish to be an authority on what can't be done?

In one hundred years,
no one is going to come here and cite a single one of the negative posts,

It will only be known that
when it really mattered,
you failed to demand action.

That the discussion was full of criticism,
conflation, obfustication, inverted logic,
and an overwhelming lack of useful solutions.

Mike

edit on 3-9-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)

NO!!!
The argument is lacking in facts of who is responsible.

When a fox kills one of your chickens, you dont kill more chickens.

Acting and being wrong is worse than doing nothing till some facts come to light.

Just because people disagree with you, it doesnt mean they are wrong. It means they see things differently than you. Until you listen to some of those reservations, and try to see from their perspective, how will you ever understand where they are coming from?

Instead of having a hissy fit and calling everyone that doesnt see things from your perspective wrong, just deal with the fact that we are all different and see things differently. If you dont like it, go buy yourself a private island and be the dictator there.
Who knows, it may be you thats wrong? Although honourable in intention, it could be foolhardy and misinformed in practice. Hence people have reservations.

Originally posted by OneManArmy

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
Are you guys done with your parade of failures
or does someone else wish to be an authority on what can't be done?

In one hundred years,
no one is going to come here and cite a single one of the negative posts,

It will only be known that
when it really mattered,
you failed to demand action.

That the discussion was full of criticism,
conflation, obfustication, inverted logic,
and an overwhelming lack of useful solutions.

Mike

edit on 3-9-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)

NO!!!
The argument is lacking in facts of who is responsible.

When a fox kills one of your chickens, you dont kill more chickens.

Acting and being wrong is worse than doing nothing till some facts come to light.

Just because people disagree with you, it doesnt mean they are wrong. It means they see things differently than you. Until you listen to some of those reservations, and try to see from their perspective, how will you ever understand where they are coming from?

Instead of having a hissy fit and calling everyone that doesnt see things from your perspective wrong, just deal with the fact that we are all different and see things differently. If you dont like it, go buy yourself a private island and be the dictator there.
Who knows, it may be you thats wrong? Although honourable in intention, it could be foolhardy and misinformed in practice. Hence people have reservations.

I'm to be put on a reservation,
and somehow I'm the one who is wrong.

Interesting.


Mike

Originally posted by mikegrouchy


But just because Americans are usually THE ONLY ones who will respond
in the positive, does not mean that we should keep jumping in to answer
the question for them. The moment has come for someone else to answer.

Mike

Sorry, have to call bull# on that one.

Delusions of grandeur are not becoming.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by darkbake
Okay, well I agree with you about dealing with the chemical warfare problem completely, I think it is totally asinine to stand by and not care while "other people" who "aren't you" are being hurt (the main problem with today's America is that pretty much everyone is an asshole).

Thank you.

This is for you.

Mike

So let me get this straight. When America does intervene the ENTIRE WORLD moans about how the U.S. meddles in other country's affairs and how we think we're the world police. And now the U.S. does not want to police the world and the same idiots are now mad that we're not interfering? Do you see how childish that is?

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

I'm to be put on a reservation,
and somehow I'm the one who is wrong.

Interesting.

Mike

Oh thats right i didnt realise that the word reservation only means a place to dump indigenous populations.

But just to improve your grasp of the english language, here....

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Originally posted by OneManArmy

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

I'm to be put on a reservation,
and somehow I'm the one who is wrong.

Interesting.

Mike

Oh thats right i didnt realise that the word reservation only means a place to dump indigenous populations.

But just to improve your grasp of the english language, here....

www.thefreedictionary.com...

There certainly seems to be a lot of fight in that reply.

Why is all that energy directed at me?
Did I use chemical weapons or something.


Mike

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by OneManArmy

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

I'm to be put on a reservation,
and somehow I'm the one who is wrong.

Interesting.

Mike

Oh thats right i didnt realise that the word reservation only means a place to dump indigenous populations.

But just to improve your grasp of the english language, here....

www.thefreedictionary.com...

There certainly seems to be a lot of fight in that reply.

Why is all that energy directed at me?
Did I use chemical weapons or something.

Mike

I wasnt fighting, merely pointing out how you take a single word and twist it out of context in reply to my post without addressing any of my points. And then you use large fonts to accuse others of not coming up with answers.

Directed at you because this is your thread and your response, in a fashion that reflects your arrogance because you feel your opinion is right and everyone that disagrees is wrong, or anyone that would rather deal with the real world facts and would like time to get the facts before rushing in like lemmings.

Its come out that the UK supplied many of the chemicals to Assad 9 months into the civil war.

So answer me this... Its okay for us to make money off the chemicals to make WMD's, but its not okay when the people we sell them to decide to use them?

Where is the morality in that?

Originally posted by OneManArmy

I wasnt fighting, merely pointing out how you take a single word and twist it out of context in reply to my post without addressing any of my points. And then you use large fonts to accuse others of not coming up with answers.

Directed at you because this is your thread and your response, in a fashion that reflects your arrogance because you feel your opinion is right and everyone that disagrees is wrong, or anyone that would rather deal with the real world facts and would like time to get the facts before rushing in like lemmings.

Its come out that the UK supplied many of the chemicals to Assad 9 months into the civil war.

So answer me this... Its okay for us to make money off the chemicals to make WMD's, but its not okay when the people we sell them to decide to use them?

Where is the morality in that?

I'm sorry you feel that way.
Now that all that is off your chest,
we are ready with open ears to hear
your solution(s) and the right course of action.


Mike

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by OneManArmy

I wasnt fighting, merely pointing out how you take a single word and twist it out of context in reply to my post without addressing any of my points. And then you use large fonts to accuse others of not coming up with answers.

Directed at you because this is your thread and your response, in a fashion that reflects your arrogance because you feel your opinion is right and everyone that disagrees is wrong, or anyone that would rather deal with the real world facts and would like time to get the facts before rushing in like lemmings.

Its come out that the UK supplied many of the chemicals to Assad 9 months into the civil war.

So answer me this... Its okay for us to make money off the chemicals to make WMD's, but its not okay when the people we sell them to decide to use them?

Where is the morality in that?

I'm sorry you feel that way.
Now that all that is off your chest,
we are ready with open ears to hear
your solution(s) and the right course of action.

Mike

The right course of action is to wait for the evidence, pure and simple.
And when we have evidence, we then have to consider the ramifications of charging into a sovereign nation with very powerful allies which could well kick off WW3, and ponder "IS IT WORTH IT?"

Who knows its a bit of a long shot, but with proof, there would be no need for a unilateral illegal invasion of a sovereign state. The world might actually work together for once.

EDIT: And ultimately its diplomacy that ends wars, and diplomacy that stops them from ever starting in the first place. Killing people on their own soil is the general way to make yourself many enemies who will stop at nothing to get their justice.

Another EDIT: when exactly are you going to address anything I have said? Instead of trolling.

Originally posted by OneManArmy

The right course of action is to wait for the evidence, pure and simple.
And when we have evidence, we then have to consider the ramifications of charging into a sovereign nation with very powerful allies which could well kick off WW3, and ponder "IS IT WORTH IT?"

Who knows its a bit of a long shot, but with proof, there would be no need for a unilateral illegal invasion of a sovereign state. The world might actually work together for once.

EDIT: And ultimately its diplomacy that ends wars, and diplomacy that stops them from ever starting in the first place. Killing people on their own soil is the general way to make yourself many enemies who will stop at nothing to get their
justice.

edit on 3-9-2013 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

Calling for the collection of actual evidence
in the possession of We The People is what I have
been doing since page 3 of this thread. Wish you were there.



BBC: Syria crisis: US intervention 'limited and proportional' - Obama


The boat is just about to pull out,
with or without you.

Don't be mad at me just because I
offered you the opportunity to come
up unto the deck and copilot. To
make sure we sail to a destination
that is acceptable to you.

Stay on the dock and chant
diplomacy if you wish.


Mike

Originally posted by mikegrouchy


Calling for the collection of actual evidence
in the possession of We The People is what I have
been doing since page 3 of this thread. Wish you were there.



BBC: Syria crisis: US intervention 'limited and proportional' - Obama


The boat is just about to pull out,
with or without you.

Don't be mad at me just because I
offered you the opportunity to come
up unto the deck and copilot. To
make sure we sail to a destination
that is acceptable to you.

Stay on the dock and chant
diplomacy if you wish.

Mike

OK so how many chemical weapons experts do you have on the good ship "Merca"?
Because until "we the people" have experts that know what they are talking about and have the tools to find out what chemicals were used and who used them, then I would say its a pointless voyage. Oh and a time machine too, so we can go back and test the chemicals that have mostly dissipated by now.

I will chant diplomacy all day, more people get to live out their lives that way. I dont then feel guilty for the deaths of others in my name.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


I believe the 'Boat' is a Battleship and it doesn't give a hoot what ANY of us think, either way. If we approve? They'll smile. If we don't? They'll invite us to go out in front and stop their Battleship if we have a problem....as they ignore the "thump thump thump" sounds from the propeller, running through someon...err..thing solid.

I wish they cared. I wish evidence beyond their secret intercepts to secret agents with secret orders mattered. None of it does though and being the 4th time through this rodeo? Well... I have NO illusion that anything we do will have any impact. I thought stupid things like that in 1990, when I was a teenager and given to such fanciful notions.

Now all we can do is hang on, hope our leaders don't murder TOO many people in our name, and wonder if this will be the one someone finally fights back on, as if they mean to live a little longer.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

I believe the 'Boat' is a Battleship and it doesn't give a hoot what ANY of us think, either way. If we approve? They'll smile. If we don't? They'll invite us to go out in front and stop their Battleship if we have a problem....as they ignore the "thump thump thump" sounds from the propeller, running through someon...err..thing solid.

I wish they cared. I wish evidence beyond their secret intercepts to secret agents with secret orders mattered. None of it does though and being the 4th time through this rodeo? Well... I have NO illusion that anything we do will have any impact. I thought stupid things like that in 1990, when I was a teenager and given to such fanciful notions.

Now all we can do is hang on, hope our leaders don't murder TOO many people in our name, and wonder if this will be the one someone finally fights back on, as if they mean to live a little longer.

Probably wont be believed, but I'll say it anyway.
What you have written is almost exactly how I feel.

The hairs difference, is that I'm committed to finding
out the truth about who was behind the chemical
attacks, in-the-long-term.

I'm not going to change the channel,
I'm not going to move onto the next crisis,
I'm going to pursue this all the way to the end.

Because this is just-a-first-step for me, I am glad
that the military is taking action in my name, it means
they know who their boss is and they are following orders.


Mike

This song is dedicated to all the victims
of the Chemical Weapons attack.
Particularly the children.


Mike

reply to post by mikegrouchy


Well, fair enough on that. When you and I disagree, it seems to be on big, passionate things. However, that doesn't lessen your right to your opinion, every bit as much as I have my right to mine.

Particularly after your reply with reasoning? Well, I still don't agree...lol.. I can't fault a well thought out and logical argument though. Disagree? Of course. My right and prerogative. I can't fault the opinion itself though. You have the right reasons and intentions, IMO.