Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Moral Ambiguity of the Syrian Drama

page: 2
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by all2human

Was created as a deterrent against Israel's similarly non-admitted nuclear weapons.


Shouldn't be Americas concern what Israel does. Just like it shouldn't be our concern in what India or Pakistan does with their Nuclear arsenal. Imagine the money saved if we took our toys, came home, and spent ALL our money that we use on Policing fixing our own broken Infrastructure? Even half of it? Took the other half, adopt Mexico's strict Immigration Laws as our own? Imagine kicking the UN out of this Country? Dissolving NATO?
Ending most favored Nation status to Communist China? Raise Tariffs to China's levels? Cancel ALL debt owed, and hit the financial reset button?

I'm starting to see a resurgent America.




Why should we care if Syria uses all its WMD? If Iran decided to go into Iraq? If Israel decides to destroy all its Neighbors?

Because morally, we have too many problems here. We should take care of HERE first. Like I said earlier though. NO ONE, NO Country should complain one bit if it did happen. Because right now is 1984...........

Just my rambling thoughts on the whole thing......







posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Which brings us to who used them?
same question could apply to all states possessing wmd's, were they intended for actual use? i personally think not.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
If Syria needed the WMD's to defend themselves against possible Israel aggression, then wouldn't it be amoral of the US to leave them defenseless if we attack???



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by all2human
reply to post by beezzer
 


Which brings us to who used them?
same question could apply to all states possessing wmd's, were they intended for actual use? i personally think not.


There are always plans for eventual use, regardless of the weapon, regardless of the country.

Let's just all be thankful that they haven't been used.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
If Syria needed the WMD's to defend themselves against possible Israel aggression, then wouldn't it be amoral of the US to leave them defenseless if we attack???



Is it morally right to strike first, or wait for impending doom?

Somewhere, someone wants their 70 virgins.............

And someone is making a backdoor arms deal with Chinese or Russian AK's. Some leader is getting a kickback.

The ONLY actors in this drama that dont have a script are those who want peace......

Sad.





edit on 1-9-2013 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Hence the thread title.


The ones screaming moral obligations are the ones that HAVE NONE!



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Well they have been used and this is a real problem that should be addressed



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


The only reason that Syria is such an important issue now is because the financial expectations that the US corporate interest running this nation have on that country.

We all know who financed the Syrian rebels and from where the money came that financed the death of the victims including children in that country.

We as tax payers should be demanding the heads of our entire body of government here in the US for crimes against humanity.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by all2human
reply to post by beezzer
 


Well they have been used and this is a real problem that should be addressed


Why does our "moral outrage" over-rule their "moral imperative" for their use?



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Always look forward to your posts!

I would even say that we have a "moral obligation" to do so.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Again the concern is that this(chem. weapons) will be the new and accepted way to wage war, if nothing is done.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by all2human
reply to post by beezzer
 



Again the concern is that this(chem. weapons) will be the new and accepted way to wage war, if nothing is done.


An interesting concept that I won't discount. But where is this generated from? How did this concern germinate?



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by all2human
reply to post by beezzer
 


Well they have been used and this is a real problem that should be addressed


When the UN is played like a fixed boxing match, and the Judges are all Don King impersonators, I do believe nothing will be addressed. Unless you have the money to fix the score cards........




Which brings me to the final irony of it all.

Russia and China could easily ask Assad to step down, and to relinquish those WMD's to the UN. They haven't. Because morally they believe he should have them or they really dont care if he has them or uses them.

Bottom line they are going to make even more money off of this.

And Somewhere a Syrian is dying because of inaction........



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Thanks, now, to the topic imagine that, will Obama attack the same people that he gave our tax payers dollars to finance the civil war in that country?

He now faces another scandal amid the many that his administration is been plague for the last 5 years.

If Obama have some speck of decency he should stop the madness that has taken over this nations due to the profiteers of war.

But no, just like a political whore that our president is he will do what his masters tell him to do.

Because after all is to save the littler children and a "moral Obligation", we as tax payers, voters and citizens of this nation are all guilty.

edit on 1-9-2013 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





What else would you use chemical WMD's for? What application could chemical weapons be used for, other than killing people?


It's the poor man's Nuke, a horrible thing used to deter attack. If you're dealing with an uprising this is a horrible way to go about it. It's a torturous, hideous way to die and there is no controlling who it effects if you use it in a populated area.




People die every day everywhere around the world.

Yet WE beat the war drums and cry foul when chemical weapons are used?


People die everyday, but they aren't essentially tortured to death. This isn't a bullet, it's a horrifying and excruciating way to die. This is the kind of thing you don't wish on your worst enemy.

I think it's more about the intent. Bombs are sick, but the intent is more to kill. To me, biological weapons and chemical weapons are meant to cause absolute fear. They are an example maker. I would rather die instantaneously than suffer excruciating pain knowing I was going to die, and knowing that my loved ones were going through the same thing.

It's the intentional psychological horror and suffering that makes it different in my eyes. There are some things worse than the worst physical pain.

Now all that being said, I don't know what I think the right thing to do is in this situation. Bombing the country makes little sense to me. Propping up a group that will most likely be even more disgusting when in power makes little sense to me. Doing nothing leaves me with some serious moral qualms, but at this point I think it's the best thing to do.

There aren't going to be clear answers. I'm pretty young, but even I know just about everything is a shade of gray.

Pray on it. If you don't want to do that, give good thoughts, if you don't think that works, I don't know what to tell ya except write your representatives, encourage people to vote differently etc. I would encourage a blend of all these things.

Check the General DIscussion soon, I just found a picture earlier today I hope you'll enjoy.

edit on 1-9-2013 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


To my shame, your post has identified who is morally culpable.

Us.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


While I agree that there are no moral absolutes, to abuse the sense of morality of a nation is amoral at it's finest!
edit on 1-9-2013 by beezzer because: this edit was brought to you by the letter a



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I agree, yes I am ashamed that we as a nation of supposedly leaders when it comes to human rights, "or that is what is been drill into us" allow this type of manipulation and death of people so far away when our own tax dollars are used to finance terrorism in the interest of those that profit from chaos and death.

It seems that the corrupted greedy rats this days do not even care to hide their corruption of money interest anymore.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer

If nothing is done, will it be perceived as tolerance to acts of mass destruction and death?
edit on 1-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   
800.000 thousand people were killed in Rwanda in 100 days by machetes & nobody said a peep in 1994.

So give me a break with this Red Line crap!.





new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join