War on Syria

Views: 753

Comment by Gregg R Thomas on September 9, 2013 at 6:34pm

@Dino;

"...I do my drinking at home, alone, in the dark, often chuckling quietly to myself while posting on TA..."

:0 Do you have a ring named My Precious? :)

Comment by Gallup's Mirror on September 9, 2013 at 6:39pm

They're talking now about putting the weapons under international supervision to keep them from being used, which gets us partway to destroying them. This seems to be a Russian proposal.

Obama just called this proposal a "breakthrough". (Apparently gassing civilians with banned chemical nerve agents is "crossing a line", but blowing them to bits with banned cluster bombs and incinerating them alive with banned thermobaric weapons is not.)

Obama figured national security would be a bipartisan rallying cry but miscalculated. Of course House Republicans are against bombing Syria. Why? Because he's for it.

Putin just offered Obama a face-saving way out so he's going to grab it and turn an embarrassing political defeat into a stunning foreign policy victory. Unless the Syrians blow it for him (which I doubt the Russians will permit) there won't be any bombing now. Obama has done the math:

Comment by Rocky john on September 9, 2013 at 8:23pm

Gallup- "but blowing them to bits with banned cluster bombs and incinerating them alive with banned thermobaric weapons is not."

These weapons are banned? Thats strange, considering America used both in Iraq.

Comment by Gallup's Mirror on September 9, 2013 at 9:42pm

Gallup- "but blowing [civilians] to bits with banned cluster bombs and incinerating them alive with banned thermobaric weapons is not." These weapons are banned? Thats strange, considering America used both in Iraq.

Cluster munitions were banned in 2010 after (perhaps because of) the war in Iraq. Thermobarics are banned for use against civilian (not military) targets. Neverthless it wouldn't surprise me to learn the US (or any other state) has either left itself a legal loophole to continue using them, or is simply flouting international law when it suits them (as Syria is doing).

Comment by Unseen on September 9, 2013 at 9:51pm

It's hard in any war to keep munitions intended for use on military targets from harming civilians. That was as true of heavy artillery in WWII as it is with incendiary bombs today. And then you have the human shield phenomenon which is heavily used in conflicts in the Middle East.

Comment by Warren on September 10, 2013 at 12:42pm

Didn't the Vietnam war start with the US sending "advisers" in first? Then it was the gulf of tonkin false flag "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin" that really got us in deep?

Every time the government (esp the white house) tells me the sky is falling, I'm very suspicious. It's all made to sound like a great idea until people get killed and the effort gets really messy with no real end to it.

They will try again

Comment by Unseen on September 10, 2013 at 4:05pm

If you're literally talking about when the Vietnam war started, it started long before the US got involved.

Comment by Unseen on September 10, 2013 at 4:09pm

@archie

De Gaul had the unmitigated Gaul to criticize our involvement! The French haven't involved themselves in a war since their white flag factory burned down.

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." — General Norman Schwarzkopf

Comment by Arcus on September 10, 2013 at 4:19pm

The Vietnam war started because the US foolishly demanded that the weakened European imperial states make a disorderly withdrawal from their colonies. Such is the foolishness of dogmatic anti-imperialism. The French fought communist rebels in Indochina until they ran out of foreign blood to sacrifice. At that point the US anointed its logical, yet probably erroneous, domino theory, assuming that if Vietnam fell to the communist it would cause a domino effect ensuring communist dominance over the population and resource rich south east Asia, and most likely India and then Persia and the Arab countries. 

Comment by Unseen on September 10, 2013 at 6:17pm

@Dave Mann

I wish Christopher Hitchens were still alive so he could put all you pacifists and isolationists in your place


“If the counsel of the peaceniks had been followed, Kuwait would today be the nineteenth province of Iraq. Bosnia would be a trampled and cleansed province of Greater Serbia, Kosovo would have been emptied of most of its inhabitants, and the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan. Yet nothing seems to disturb the contented air of moral superiority of those that intone the "peace movement".”
― Christopher Hitchens, The Quotable Hitchens from Alcohol to Zionism: The Very Best of Christopher Hitchens

“Sometimes you have to pick the gun up to put the Gun down.”
― Malcolm X

“Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'.”
― George Orwell

“Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not.”
― Thomas Jefferson

"Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …”
― George Orwell

"(S)o-called peace propaganda is just as dishonest and intellectually disgusting as war propaganda. Like war propaganda, it concentrates on putting forward a ‘case’, obscuring the opponent’s point of view and avoiding awkward questions.”
― George Orwell

Comment

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

Join Think Atheist

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service