The Moral Ambiguity of the Syrian Drama

page: 5
32
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


If someone needs antibiotics, it's always bad. I had another thought for a minute that I was about to say, but I reject that thought now; on the basis that it doesn't matter the sickness. If you need antibiotics, what you have does not feel good at all, bottom line; and you need help.

Therefore, how could a human being allow themselves to be told to reject another human being antibiotics?

The system is designed to prevent evil people from profiting off of the drugs. Fine. But as a human being, I can not in good conscience make the decision to reject someone something that could potentially save their life. Infection or not, they're getting the medication.

Better to know for a fact that justice has been served either way, than to lie down on your bed wondering if you made the right choice.




posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


The system here in America is broken, and that is undeniable. We are loosing our freedoms left and right, protesters get tear gassed and arrested for political protest. Sick people get denied help and healthy people get help. Everything is designed for the politicians and bankers to make a mint and screw the normal American citizen.

Yet we sit and worry that Al Qaeda might not get their very own country and think of ways to help them get it. We worry about how other people in other countries are being treated and forget we have citizens here.

A doctor from India spoke once and said he never in his life in India saw a people so poor as those from Appalachia. Yet. we worry about other countries? I think not... we need to worry about how to fix this one, our economy, our system...



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


Thank you for your concern and care, and all your sentiment. Wanted you to know that.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


You saying that a pharmacy denied medication due to a financial limit? So the very first implication of that she should have been admitted. The situation is akin to a person on blood pressure medication being denied medication for the same reasons (within 72 hours they will likely be dead).

If it were me the first thing I would do after being told this at a pharmacy is walk right into a hospital emergency room. In such a situation, it does not mean you are ineligible for treatment. It means you will need to go to a hospital to get it.

Any thoughts?

edit on 3-9-2013 by Kashai because: modified content



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


You may be right. But the Americans also knew about Saddam's use of chemical weapons, all while supporting him against Iran. Where was the outcry then? If this fact is also considered, the moral ground for going to war over the use of chemical weapons then becomes a huge double standard.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   
In response to Syria's use of Chemicals, despite the results of UN inspections and as a reply to the children horribly killed , America's response to the deaths in Syria is to apply more death.
I think morality has just left the building.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by beezzer
 


hello beezer

lets throw a little more moral ambiguity into the equation...





Bingo!



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aphorism
reply to post by Kashai
 


You may be right. But the Americans also knew about Saddam's use of chemical weapons, all while supporting him against Iran. Where was the outcry then? If this fact is also considered, the moral ground for going to war over the use of chemical weapons then becomes a huge double standard.


What was found in Iraq were mass graves an his chemical weapons use was cited, as well as the idea Saddam Hussein had WMD's. The potential horror in this situation is that there was no way to convince the rest of the world that Iraq needed to be invaded, unless the US lied about WMD's.

It is confirmed that Iraq under Saddam Hussein did use WMD's. Some point after that it is apparent that the United States got into a conflict with Iraq, despite the fact they supported Iraq, in a conflict with Iran.

Imagine yourself as the President of the United States and an apparent ally just used chemical weapons, against an apparent enemy.

The Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988 and three years later there was Desert Storm.

Any thoughts?



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


During the same time Stalin killed about 40 million of his own people and Mao about 60 million, all because of an internal political agenda.

If the US pulled out of the Eastern Hemisphere are you assuming things would be better???

edit on 3-9-2013 by Kashai because: modifed cntent



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by beezzer
 


During the same time Stalin killed about 40 million of his own people and Mao about 60 million, all because of an internal political agenda.

If the US pulled out of the Eastern Hemisphere are you assuming things would be better???

edit on 3-9-2013 by Kashai because: modifed cntent


Since when is it our job to save the world? (Which, btw, we are doing a poor job of anyway)

We have a military that can easily protect us from invasion of any foreign military, we have food aplenty in this nation and have the manpower to provide our needs and wants....

we simply aren't needed to be everyone's savior, this is not our job..... it IS our job to run our country for the good of our OWN people....

let others run theirs, and let them fix their own problems, and if they cannot, or are too scared... it is simply not our problem.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by beezzer
 


During the same time Stalin killed about 40 million of his own people and Mao about 60 million, all because of an internal political agenda.

If the US pulled out of the Eastern Hemisphere are you assuming things would be better???

edit on 3-9-2013 by Kashai because: modifed cntent


Since when is it our job to save the world? (Which, btw, we are doing a poor job of anyway)

We have a military that can easily protect us from invasion of any foreign military, we have food aplenty in this nation and have the manpower to provide our needs and wants....

we simply aren't needed to be everyone's savior, this is not our job..... it IS our job to run our country for the good of our OWN people....

let others run theirs, and let them fix their own problems, and if they cannot, or are too scared... it is simply not our problem.


The US has been involved in saving the world since WW2 and if it were not for that effort, Hitler would have taken Europe. The truth is our ancestors accepted that "job" and today because of that. The most powerful military in the world is in the United States.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by beezzer
 


During the same time Stalin killed about 40 million of his own people and Mao about 60 million, all because of an internal political agenda.

If the US pulled out of the Eastern Hemisphere are you assuming things would be better???

edit on 3-9-2013 by Kashai because: modifed cntent


I wouldn't dare to assume one way or another.

Do we have a moral obligation to introduce ourselves into an internal political agenda?

We didn't in Darfur, Somalia.

Morality shouldn't be a light switch we turn on/off as it suits our needs.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai

Originally posted by OpinionatedB

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by beezzer
 


During the same time Stalin killed about 40 million of his own people and Mao about 60 million, all because of an internal political agenda.

If the US pulled out of the Eastern Hemisphere are you assuming things would be better???

edit on 3-9-2013 by Kashai because: modifed cntent


Since when is it our job to save the world? (Which, btw, we are doing a poor job of anyway)

We have a military that can easily protect us from invasion of any foreign military, we have food aplenty in this nation and have the manpower to provide our needs and wants....

we simply aren't needed to be everyone's savior, this is not our job..... it IS our job to run our country for the good of our OWN people....

let others run theirs, and let them fix their own problems, and if they cannot, or are too scared... it is simply not our problem.


The US has been involved in saving the world since WW2 and if it were not for that effort, Hitler would have taken Europe. The truth is our ancestors accepted that "job" and today because of that. The most powerful military in the world is in the United States.


We also know that without Russia we couldn't have defeated Hitler either...

Also, while WW 1 and 2 caused the growth of the military and military industrial complex it does not mean that we have to stick it everywhere on the planet. We can keep it in our pants so to speak.

The league of nations following WW1 was the starting point for the 'job' of 'saving' the world btw and not WW2 but the failure of the league not following the very rules they set up was the ultimate cause of WW2...

hence my saying we are doing a very poor job of it because the failures of the league are the same failures of the UN and those failures will ultimately cause WW3.... but this doesn't mean we have to be the ones to start it, in fact, we don't have to participate at all until they bring it to us.

edit on 4-9-2013 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
You all are not thinking clearly.

I wish you would.

It is the federal government's job to administer foreign policy. Don't you see that?

But it is not the federal government's job to administer healthcare.

You say the system is broken, but the fact is, systems will never work. Systems fail.

And yet you all have wisdom to understand that drones are bad because they are remote and they are not flown by someone with human instinct. How ironic that you cannot see it the same way concerning healthcare, the economy, and all other things.

Systems fail.

People are able to work outside of the system, because our hearts and spirits cannot be bound by the system.

So therefore, where there is failure, it is because of the people around us. Not because of the federal government.

So therefore, to say that the federal government should be using its resources on the local level is to invite certain destruction.

But to say the federal government should not be allowed to administer its foreign and domestic policy, for which the federal government was designed, is hypocrisy.

Lots of us are suffering, and a few of us are suffering really, really bad.

That's not because of the federal government. That's because the people have chosen to relinquish their rights to the federal government whose job it is not even to do such things.

The people around you are those that are responsible for themselves, and you. It's called community. That's why communities exist.

If you live in East Bum, your closest neighbors may be 2 miles in all directions. Doesn't matter. THAT is your community. Those are the people to who you reach out in the flesh, and in the spirit, most quickly and most directly.

Forever and always.

As far as the federal government is concerned, they have their jobs to do. You are judging way too much by sight and not enough with wisdom.

Assad, and especially those that surround him, are evil.

People say, "he was a calm, nice, and sweet family doctor."

Hannibal Lecter was calm, nice, and sweet, too.

You're not understanding the truth.

Obama himself said, as you all have witnessed, that the government should not be attacking other countries that pose no threat to us.

THEREFORE,

OBAMA BELIEVES THERE IS A DIRECT THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND/OR OUR ALLIES.

I know in our suffering it is hard to understand simple wisdom, but there comes a point in time when you realize suffering is going to continue to happen and the only way that you're going to stop feeling the effects of it is to simply accept it. Now that doesn't mean we should have hard hearts. We should love each other and build each other up and nourish each other, with tears and joy.

But you cannot base the state of the world on your own personal suffering. And you can't blame 7 billion other people for having other things on their own individual minds besides your own individual suffering.

Everyone has that burden of their own; their own suffering. So therefore, to those who not only have their own personal suffering, but also their families (like us all), but then further, they are also responsible for you and your families, and also responsible for everyone around you, and also, responsible to our allies, and also, responsible to whomever else pops up;

I don't mean any harm, but the majority of people are being just straight childish. Too much teenage drama and not enough understanding. You should learn to think outside of yourself, to feel outside of yourself, and to understand outside of yourself. That doesn't mean saying, "Those people over there, they are hurting, so we should not act!"

No, that's just being selfish by the transitive property.

If you don't understand how the household works, then you won't understand how the earth works.

But think of how momma and daddy are. Think of how they handled disputes in the house. Not everyone will know this; some will have to figure it out, or learn it for themselves, or rest on the knowledge which they witnessed at someone else's house. But this is how earth works.

In this world, America is the mom. The seed was sent here by other nations, because the womb of America was understood to be a safe haven for all people. And then the spirit of America was ingrafted into these people. And then those people sent that spirit of America over to their families in the other countries. Therefore the seed of the spirit of America was spread throughout the world; therefore, the seed of the Republic has entered into all nations. Therefore, America IS the mother, and is responsible for the understanding of the peoples of this planet.

Now the dads of this world are the other nations from whom these people fled and then came back. And now these people want to have their spirit of America, and also, the dad wants to retain his rights.

So then, what do you think? Should the mother have her say? Or the dads?

You all know that America says momma is right, in the house.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


World war 3 is not inevitable and for the US to become an isolationist Nation today is impossible. The degree of separation between nations has changed substantially since the US maintained such a posture. The truth is we are all on the same planet and yes we are not perfect, but the whole idea of waiting for "them" to come to "us"?

As I have explained there are about 1 billion people in the Western Hemisphere and there are 6 billion people in the Eastern Hemisphere. In about 100 years there will be 1.7 billion in the western hemisphere, with perhaps as many as 9 billion in the Eastern Hemisphere. If we left how would the power vacuum be filled?

Russia may have been our ally during WW2 but a lot has happened since then.

Any thoughts?



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   
This thread will be discussed tonight at 10pm Est tonight on Reality Remix.


Join ATS Members SheepSlayer247, Adjensen, NoRegretsEver, Druid42 & Beezer for two hours of their take on threads past and present right here on ATS!


Show thread





new topics
top topics
 
32
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join