WWGWD
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2012
- Messages
- 425
- Reaction score
- 127
- Location
- Austin, TX
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
No one should be frightened by me, a lowly Canadian, a stray voice in the wilderness, although resident in the third largest city in North America.
I'm not big on war, being older I'm not able to participate unless something goes truly catastrophic, so it's not for me to be encouraging others to fight. My comments were simply to reflect that in my view Iran may be a lot like Iraq - all talk, not much to back it up - and a force as strong as America's, with allies like those in NATO, would likely make quick work of them as they did in Iraq - and the aftermath would likely be far less chaotic due to the highly educated and in many respects "westernized" younger population.
But like Iraq and Iran, I'm all talk too, just enjoying the give and take of life in DP land.
Not every Islamic nation hates our guts. Take turkey for example.
But I am arguing that giving in to our blind rage and kill everyone only makes people join the terrorists side. If we act rationally and come with a understanding of the culture and show that we are not evil, then the people will be more open to reason and not so willing to join the terrorists who commit suicide bombings and indiscriminately kill their own people.
I would agree, the right exists. I, however, feel it shouldn't be exercised too strenuously.
I disagree with that. Even someone who never served has the right to be a hawk.
In principle, I concur. But you have to look at what we are dealing with. We are dealing with an evil culture, by any logical standards. I am not one to promote genocide of any culture. I say we just let them live in their desert and go about their business of killing each other. I have no inclination to come to any understanding with any archaic culture such as those over in the middle east. They are dangerous and deadly. I prefer to just isolate them and leave them to their own demise.
Personally, I think anyone enjoying the freedoms of America, that did not serve, is much like a welfare rat. Living off the work of others.
Islamic culture should not be defined by the fanatics who kill their own people any more then defining Christian culture by the atrocities of the inqusition.
That leaves military decisions in the hands of a particular perspective, which is not good for multifaceted democratic solutions.
Also, us "brainwashed warmongers" need the support of the un-fettered.
You should find something else to be elitist about because that's weak.
Just sayin'.... And if the shoe fits......
Personally, I think anyone enjoying the freedoms of America, that did not serve, is much like a welfare rat. Living off the work of others.
But I digress.
Just sayin'.... And if the shoe fits......
Next time one of you rightwingers wanna complain about some lazy person sitting on the front porch all day drinking 40's and living off a government check, keep in mind that, if you did not serve, that's how I look at you. That goes for leftwingers too.
If a person is called by their country to serve and they refuse to when they are able, then that is something to criticize.
It most certainly was in the early 20th century. Prior to WWII, eugenics was considered a progressive movement led by Ivy League intellectuals - on the forefront of science with all the promise to improve the human race. There were academic journals devoted to the subject. Scholars devoted their careers toward "racial improvement." This was a "new science for breeding better men" wrote the editors of Scientific American:Racism is neither abstract nor intellectual.
Suppose that Ada Juke or her immediate children had been prevented from perpetuating the Juke family. Not only would the State have been spared the necessity of supporting one thousand defective persons, morally and physically incapable of performing the functions of citizenship, but American manhood would have been considerably better off, and society would have been free from one taint at least.
It most certainly was in the early 20th century.
...and what would you propose?
What I proposed long ago when this thing started. As soon as the situation degenerated into civil war and Assad started massacring his people we should have secured the WMD sites we knew about and destroyed or removed the stores. Then we should have announced that we wish to protect the civilian populace from Assad (as we did in Libya) and bombed the crap out of some of his strategic sites in order to strip away his C4I and IADS capabilities. This would have left us much better positioned against Iran, and removed a serious threat.
The White House on Tuesday warned there would be “consequences” for the regime of Syrian President Bashar al Assad if it has crossed President Obama’s “red line” and used a chemical weapon. Press secretary Jay Carney declined to confirm reports that a chemical weapon has been used for the first time in Syria’s civil war, saying only that the White House is "looking carefully at the information as it comes in."
The White House did not rule out the possibility that the Assad regime waged the attack, and warned there would be "consequences" if they are found to have done so.
"We have been very clear about our concern that as the Assad regime is increasingly beleaguered … that it will consider the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people," Carney said, stressing that the administration was "obviously treating this as a serious issue."
I think the United Nations will force the matter, they will ask us to lead a colalition into Syria.
Lets just hope this story is just a rumor.
Personally, I think anyone enjoying the freedoms of America, that did not serve, is much like a welfare rat. Living off the work of others.
But I digress.
So our job is to be the policemen of the world?
What I proposed long ago when this thing started. As soon as the situation degenerated into civil war and Assad started massacring his people we should have secured the WMD sites we knew about and destroyed or removed the stores. Then we should have announced that we wish to protect the civilian populace from Assad (as we did in Libya) and bombed the crap out of some of his strategic sites in order to strip away his C4I and IADS capabilities. This would have left us much better positioned against Iran, and removed a serious threat.
...and how do we secure his "wmd" sites? Invade?
Interesting you would propose this and use the term "wmd" on this particular anniversary. It begs the question: didn't you learn anything?
You do realize that "as we did in Libya" is a huge assumption that we are dealing with a similar situation. If you think that, you are running contrary to the experts on this matter.
Dempsey: Syria 'much different' from Libya, 'big players' involved in conflict | Fox News
Also, please note that this particular line of thought seriously impairs your credibility in ever expressing to outrage about debt and deficits. Do you know how expensive it is to bomb and occupy?
So we are clear, I respect your opinion that an active military solution in Syria is warranted; I respect the opinions that say debt and deficits are a major economic problem that must be addressed immediately. I don't respect the idea of holding both opinions (not saying you do)...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?