Views: 753

Comment by Warren on September 6, 2013 at 7:50am

I can't believe they are taking us down this road again. All for the sake of profit for them. And I doubt we can stop them. After this, who else are we going to fight a sacred battle against?

Comment by Nina van der Roos on September 6, 2013 at 4:51pm
Well america trained the islamic fundementalists in the first place, funded them handsomely (boasting about it in the film Charlie's War I think), nurtured the likes of Bin Liner so does it not make sense to hook up with old buddies and let bygones be bygones ?

I thought he had the french helping out as well so what could go wrong with them on the scene (cough) ?

Of course french involvement is splitting french politics right down the middle and it certainly looks like the French public do not want it having seen such involvement in Libya seen turn that country into a state of murder, thuggery and theft. Does the internal French political and public reluctance get reprted in the US Media ?
Comment by Dr. Bob on September 6, 2013 at 5:58pm

Does the internal French political and public reluctance get reprted in the US Media ?

As you would expect, Nina, it does not.  The U.S. Media has always been solipsistic; in recent years it has become increasingly shallow.  It actually takes quite a bit of effort for us Yanks to build a network of online sources to get a better informed view of things, and most of us lack the language skills to go beyond English sources.    I have no doubt this contributes to why our politicians seem so out of touch.

Comment by Unseen on September 6, 2013 at 8:12pm

Just out of curiosity, imagine for a moment that Hitler hadn't been expansionist and simply sent German Jews to the gas chambers, making it an internal affair.

Would it have been none of our business?

Comment by Ed on September 6, 2013 at 9:31pm

@ Unseen

Sheer numbers sometimes speak for themselves. Six million emaciated dead jews would of been hard to turn a blind eye to. But then again the despot Pol Pot killed millions in Cambodia and let's not forget the atrocities of Idi Amin in African Uganda. In both we did little to nothing. For some reason we (the U.S.) can swallow death by machete or starvation much easier than the use of deadly gas. All the victims remain equally dead. We need to change our interventionist policy to either tolerate NO mass murdering anywhere, regardless of methodology, or to predicate involvement on a verifiable conclusion that our national security must be at risk. If you don't have mixed emotions on this issue I can't think of one that would. Mankind continues to demonstrate our shallow thinking as caring creatures. 

Comment by _Robert_ on September 6, 2013 at 9:48pm

@Unseen,  nothing can change if that's as deep as your question goes. Your presumption is that war and violence is a solution to violence. It can NEVER be.

Imagine for a moment that the German citizen-soldiers acted as barely-decent human beings in mass and refused to murder people based on one man's personal inadequacies. The solution is a humanity with a vast majority of people who simply refuse to do immoral things on behalf of a country or religion. A true age of reason.


Comment by Unseen on September 6, 2013 at 10:12pm


I have mixed emotions on everything. It's a problem I have. I see both sides of every issue where many people see only one side. I don't see you seeing any complexity here, so I think you need to look at yourself rather than criticizing me for the exact thing you're guilty of.

Now, I wasn't happy that we didn't do more about Cambodia and Uganda, and ultimately liberating the Nazi death camps was part of WWII, not the focus. Had we not entered WWII, the US could have been attacked from the East by Germany and the West by Japan. I'd like to think we would have intervened on behalf of the German Jews, but I'm not sure.

America does have a BIG interest in keeping WMD's out of anywhere but most especially the Middle East. And like the President said yesterday, most of the world signed the treaty forbidding the use of poison gas. Syria and North Korea did not. 

Just as with nuclear weapons, it's about non-proliferation of the WMD's more than saving lives in Syria. 

Obama doesn't want to intervene in the war other than keeping poison gas out of it. He certainly has mixed feelings about both sides, given that the rebels are a rag tag bunch that includes some Islamists who have committed some atrocities of their own.

In fact, a large part of it seems to be to let Iran know that developing WMD's (in their case, nuclear weapons) won't be tolerated. 

It's not about oil. Syria doesn't produce much oil. 

Comment by Unseen on September 6, 2013 at 10:15pm

Your presumption is that war and violence is a solution to violence. It can NEVER be.

I forget who said it, but it goes, "When some mean motherfuckers are coming over the hill, you need meaner motherfuckers to go up and meet them."

Being unable to meet violence with violence is almost a definition of victimhood.

Comment by _Robert_ on September 6, 2013 at 10:38pm

Being unable to meet violence with violence is almost a definition of victimhood.

The point is to look at what incited the violence in the first place. Was it religious dogma? Was it a political leader? Lets eliminate the causes.

Ever the optimist I refuse to believe that we have to accept this level of violence on such massive scales.


Comment by Rocky john on September 7, 2013 at 12:44am

I would guess that one of the major reasons Obama wants to go to war with Syria is due to it being one of Irans only real allies.With syria out of the way it will be easier to fight a  war against  Iran for trying to produce nuclear weapons.

Funnily enough, but i remeber reading something a few months ago on how it looked like the Syrian rebels had used nerve gas back in march.

U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas: investigator


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service