Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

@JPB,

This isent happening 300 years ago. Its happening now.
this is what I hate about Islam. The Idea that a religion agrees with the Idea that its Ok to force people to its religion or be killed. Its one reason the U S of A is better than most governments. The seperation of church and state. In my opinion politician who starts spouting religious beliefs should be removed from office.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Aha. I was thinking along those lines, if all true.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

True. Whats that old indian saying about walking in my moccasins for 30 moons. I have become appalled at the number of times Obama has gone in the same direction as Bush and his bunch. I think that the military and industrial complex has way too much power to change our government too their point of view, which makes me wonder just how much the people are in control. A majority want some kind of gun control but politicians have increased the right of any idiot to own one. A majority dont want to be involved in a ground war in the middle east but the military and industrial complex want one because it sells things and only costs a few 10's of thousands of young people and if you have the wealth you can keep your kids out of the wars. Just publish a bunch of BS about how one owes it to your government to go to some country 10,000 miles from where you live to fight a war that dosent have anything to do with your country. Its insane!!!!

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

You have it spot on!

Quote:

It's insane.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I'll agree with you on that much, Frank. I still don't actively dislike Obama. I'm disappointed, but what did I expect? I knew he was far more middle of the road than I am when I voted for him, quite conservative in his own way. Plus he handles more information than I do, though that info has coated wings by various in place experts. I disagree with a bunch of his stuff, but I see how (or, mostly how) he arrived at decisions he did. In a way, the country was somewhat where he is. It is not as left mixed with libertarian as I am.

If he did everything I wanted him to, all hell would have probably broken loose, since government stoppage has become de rigueur as it is.
I've seen the country pay close to no attention to infrastructure except big talk about fast trains through not very long sets of miles, given the breadth of the country. Memories of Eisenhower's words, re our priorities.

Hawkeye talking about Obama's great ego? Look at yourself, man.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

I'll agree with you on that much, Frank. I still don't actively dislike Obama. I'm disappointed, but what did I expect? I knew he was far more middle of the road than I am when I voted for him, quite conservative in his own way. Plus he handles more information than I do, though that info has coated wings by various in place experts. I disagree with a bunch of his stuff, but I see how (or, mostly how) he arrived at decisions he did. In a way, the country was somewhat where he is. It is not as left mixed with libertarian as I am.

If he did everything I wanted him to, all hell would have probably broken loose, since government stoppage has become de rigueur as it is.
I've seen the country pay close to no attention to infrastructure except big talk about fast trains through not very long sets of miles, given the breadth of the country. Memories of Eisenhower's words, re our priorities.

Hawkeye talking about Obama's great ego? Look at yourself, man.

I know what you mean, Ossobuco. If I could have my "wish list" fulfilled, it would have a lot more positives and a lot fewer negatives for this administration.

But...as you noted, if our "wish list" had been pursued, civil war would probably have broken out. The country has to move our way a great deal before there will be an administration that will be pleasing to either of us…and we are very far away from the day that will happen.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Stick to cricket, Spendius.

Oh--I will. There's no need to worry about that. I prefer subtlety and nuance to accompany violence. Touchdowns seem crudely misogynistic to me.

Runs are an objective measure.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Nods.

Ahhh, agreement, probably in passing but that's okay, for a breath of air.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Stick to cricket, Spendius.

Oh--I will. There's no need to worry about that. I prefer subtlety and nuance to accompany violence. Touchdowns seem crudely misogynistic to me.

I'd love to hear an explanation of that. Sounds interesting.

Quote:

Runs are an objective measure.

I guess that depends on who has the runs!

1 Reply

I used to apologize for Clinton, even when I knew he could do better. I am finished with apologizing for Democrats who can do better but follow like lambs.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I'd love to hear an explanation of that. Sounds interesting.

I doubt you would. It was a Reichian joke outside your weltanschauung.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Have you had any of Reich's therapy, spendi?

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

The question is what you do when you see the most appalling atrocities committed in front of you and you have the power to stop it or discourage it.

You've seen the US commit much worse atrocities many more times just in your lifetime, Brandon. What's with the typical hypocrisy?

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Quote:
White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough told Meet The Press that a prospective U.S. attack on Syria would send a message to Iranian leaders that they should not feel free to develop nuclear weapons.
Quote:
“This is an opportunity to be bold with the Iranians,” McDonough said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

So.... the point of killing more Syrians is to send a message to Iran not to "feel free to develop nuclear weapons". Whoa.

That is a very important part of this.

It is true that Obama wants to live in a world where people do not accept the use of chemical weapons against civilians.

But if it comes to pass that Obama backs down on the use of chemical weapons against civilians, what does it say about his promise to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

Hopefully it will not be too late for Israel to bomb Iran themselves.

0 Replies

@JPB,

there are a lot of countries which are adding to the destruction of Syria for reasons that have nothing to do with Syria, our bombing Syria as part of our Iran policy fits right in.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

interesting to see in the NYTimes that Hollande of France is the latest war lusting politician to get his ass handed to him by the people who are sick of constant war. The Professor should be next.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

I have no strong feeling about whether to go or not go. I'd be fine either way. However, as a matter of principle, if a dictator is using a chemical weapon to kill thousands of his own people, men, women, and children, I see nothing wrong at all with using the military to stop or to punish him.

War is a horrible thing because it destroys so many lives, mutilates so many, leaving countless shattered hearts. I agree with you Brandon, and feel if someone doesn't stop the autocratic Bashar Assad, he will feel even more emboldened, that he has the green light to keep his people in line, to remain in power forever, always blaming others for "acting without his knowledge." And after Assad gets away with it, what about other states using the same methodology? I sincerely believe a message must be sent that the world will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons by repressive dictators.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Have you had any of Reich's therapy, spendi?

No. I have all his books though and I've read them. It is where science and Christian theology part company. The scientific arguments against religion necessarily embrace Reich.

That's why most of those arguments are half-baked. They are using some science within the Christian pseudomorphosis. Hence I'm often put on Ignore.

It is the age old question of the individual in opposition to society. Socialism and totalitarianism have to reject Reich for the same reasons the Church does. The Soviets accepted Reich for a short period after which they persecuted it.

Dylan and Henry Miller have both read Reich. He died in a US jail. Science is okay when applied to non-human organisms and things. Applied to humans assiduously it produces a tangle.

In society we are are much more than a bundle of reflexes which is what full-on science necessarily says we are. Dawkins is having us on.

Maybe I should say was having us on because I have seen little mention of him for quite a while once the spurt was over. The further the scientific argument against the Church goes the more obvious it becomes that it should keep itself to itself. It is possible that once Dawkins got serious traction it became necessary to explain the subject to him.

0 Replies

I have not read every word he wrote, but I have read some of his books, plus a number of articles about him. He refused to comply with the law. When you do that you are giving the system liberty to violate you.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

But what is the system? The vote coming up on Syria represents two systems. The voice of the people and the voice of central government. Some people might vote for a strike on Syria for no other reason than that they support central government right or wrong.

The Constitution, it seems to me, is always on the side of the voice of the people. Which is a thorny issue when MONEY force is applied to engineering that voice.

There is no solution beyond a fist banged on the desk.

1 Reply

Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know