Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     photo 1234051_10151742326420914_439808334_n_zps8b11cc26.jpg



    Paranoid much?

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     photo 1234051_10151742326420914_439808334_n_zps8b11cc26.jpg

     



    Paranoid much?

     

     



    Not really. Just trying to stir the pot. Similar to how sistersledge does with his pictures. 

    Was curious to see the kneejerk reactions to it : )

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    Was curious to see the kneejerk reactions to it : )

     



    "kneejerk"?

     

    Sorry if you thought it was worth an essay.



    Who said anything about an essay?

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    .....



    Most sense you've made in a long time : )

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

     

     photo 1234051_10151742326420914_439808334_n_zps8b11cc26.jpg

     

     



    Paranoid much?

     

     

     

     



    Not really. Just trying to stir the pot. Similar to how sistersledge does with his pictures. 

     

    Was curious to see the kneejerk reactions to it : )



    More like a kneeball$ reaction.  It's idiotic..a connection that only a extreme nationalist puddinghead would believe.

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     photo 1234051_10151742326420914_439808334_n_zps8b11cc26.jpg

     

     

     



    Paranoid much?

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Not really. Just trying to stir the pot. Similar to how sistersledge does with his pictures. 

     

     

    Was curious to see the kneejerk reactions to it : )

     



    More like a kneeball$ reaction.  It's idiotic..a connection that only a extreme nationalist puddinghead would believe.

     

     

     



    Well...it worked. Thanks!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:


    Well...it worked. Thanks!

     

     



    Quick, someone fetch a Medal of Honor!

     



    That's a bit extreme, but then again...hyperbole is your thing ; )

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:


    I can see the logic behind some of these well-stated points, although I don't agree with most of them.

     

     

     

    I'm not fully convinced by the argument that any nation - superpower or not - has a responsibility to act as the global moral arbiter of sectarian rifts or other various highly personal, local squabbles.  Without answering that, any military action is untenable.

    In many ways, this conflict was inevitable, regardless of which american sits in the oval office.  Recent syrian history shows that Assad & co. have had this coming. 

    And in many ways, this conflict might just be unstoppable at this point.

     

     




     

    The US may not have a 'responsibility' but there may be an argument to be made based on morality, principal and the strategic interest of our allies.

     

    Our country would not have existed if it wasn't for the intervention by some very powerful allies.I'm not saying we should try and determine the political future of other countries but standing by while they are slaughtered and gassed is almost a implicit approval of genocide.

    We have the military technology to intervene, to whatever degree we see fit, without endangering the lives of our own soldiers. To me, that alone balances the equation in the favor of some form of action.

    I admit there are some real moral and intellectual hazards involved, such as;

    What if the intervention prods Assad to lash out in desperation and escalates the conflict across borders?

    What if we are helping our enemies?

    What if all of our initial efforts are futile, do we walk away?

     

    But IMHO this falls under the idea of "noblesse oblige", for lack of a better term.



    Those 'hazards' are most of the point.  They far outweigh the possible benefits.

    Syria is NOT pre-revolutionary America.  It just isn't.  Those 'allies' needed persuading (bribes) to help out the colonists, who had nevertheless rallied support AND both intellectual and philossophical justification for independence from the crown.  (The only real moral opposition was to tyranny, which is a bit subjective...especially in a slave-owning society.)

    Having the power to intervene is hardly relevant to the enormous responsibility incurred by actually using it.  Whether we lose a single soldier or not, many innocent people will die no matter what we do.

     

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     photo 1234051_10151742326420914_439808334_n_zps8b11cc26.jpg

     

     

     

     



    Paranoid much?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Not really. Just trying to stir the pot. Similar to how sistersledge does with his pictures. 

     

     

     

    Was curious to see the kneejerk reactions to it : )

     

     



    More like a kneeball$ reaction.  It's idiotic..a connection that only a extreme nationalist puddinghead would believe.

     

     

     

     

     



    Well...it worked. Thanks!

     



    No problem.  I'm here to help.

     

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     photo 1234051_10151742326420914_439808334_n_zps8b11cc26.jpg

     

     

     

     

     



    Paranoid much?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Not really. Just trying to stir the pot. Similar to how sistersledge does with his pictures. 

     

     

     

     

    Was curious to see the kneejerk reactions to it : )

     

     

     



    More like a kneeball$ reaction.  It's idiotic..a connection that only a extreme nationalist puddinghead would believe.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Well...it worked. Thanks!

     

     

     



    No problem.  I'm here to help.

     

     

     



    I figured as much. Especially since I figured you'd remember that I posted at least half dozen times on BDC that I would be fine with an assault weapons ban in this country. 

     

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     


    I can see the logic behind some of these well-stated points, although I don't agree with most of them.

     

     

     

     

     

    I'm not fully convinced by the argument that any nation - superpower or not - has a responsibility to act as the global moral arbiter of sectarian rifts or other various highly personal, local squabbles.  Without answering that, any military action is untenable.

    In many ways, this conflict was inevitable, regardless of which american sits in the oval office.  Recent syrian history shows that Assad & co. have had this coming. 

    And in many ways, this conflict might just be unstoppable at this point.

     

     

     

     




     

     

     

    The US may not have a 'responsibility' but there may be an argument to be made based on morality, principal and the strategic interest of our allies.

     

    Our country would not have existed if it wasn't for the intervention by some very powerful allies.I'm not saying we should try and determine the political future of other countries but standing by while they are slaughtered and gassed is almost a implicit approval of genocide.

    We have the military technology to intervene, to whatever degree we see fit, without endangering the lives of our own soldiers. To me, that alone balances the equation in the favor of some form of action.

    I admit there are some real moral and intellectual hazards involved, such as;

    What if the intervention prods Assad to lash out in desperation and escalates the conflict across borders?

    What if we are helping our enemies?

    What if all of our initial efforts are futile, do we walk away?

     

    But IMHO this falls under the idea of "noblesse oblige", for lack of a better term.

     

     



    Those 'hazards' are most of the point.  They far outweigh the possible benefits.

     

     

    Syria is NOT pre-revolutionary America.  It just isn't.  Those 'allies' needed persuading (bribes) to help out the colonists, who had nevertheless rallied support AND both intellectual and philossophical justification for independence from the crown.  (The only real moral opposition was to tyranny, which is a bit subjective...especially in a slave-owning society.)

    Having the power to intervene is hardly relevant to the enormous responsibility incurred by actually using it.  Whether we lose a single soldier or not, many innocent people will die no matter what we do.

     

     

     




    Good points all.

     

    But resigning oneself to some preconcieved inevitablity such as "innocent people will die no matter what we do" doesn't make looking away while innocent people die today any better of a proposition.

     

    I would clarify my colonial America comparison in the sense that I was alluding to a kind of 'pay-it-forward' idea in that popular uprisings by a civilian population against a ruthless dictator may be an acceptable use of the enormous military machine we have created.

     



    Nobody here is looking away, as far as I can tell.  

    "Resigning ourselves" is only the first step.  Point being is that there are ALWAYS consequences and only a few of them can be realistically foreseen.  Recent history reeks of it.

    "Acceptable" to whom?  Surely not to the people who will die as a result or the lives displaced.

    What we have here is a power grab/shift of a majority against a ruling elite minority along sectarian and ethnic lines, and even that is oversimplifying to a fault.

     

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?


    no blood for oil.......Obama is a warmonger controlled by the oil industry.....

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:



    You mean, besides the fact that there are two international treaties banning the use of such agents and they have been judged by world consensus to be cruel and inhumane?



    lol really! That your answer?

    We're taking the moral high road and saying "as long as you murder 100 thousand plus civilians with conventional military hardware we wont get too mad but, if you gas a few hundred then we will kill some more civilians with our conventional bombs to teach you a lesson"!?

    That's pathetic!

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    In response to G0DVERNMENT's comment:

     

    In response to newman09's comment:

     

     

    • Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad is a war criminal, a mass murderer and a baby killer. By using poison gas on Syrian civilians which is against the Geneva Convention, Assad is now responsible for thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths, according to the humanitarian group, Doctors without Borders. So there is no question that Assad must be held accountable.

      If you believe in American exceptionalism that this country has a moral obligation to save lives when it can all over the world, then you know the USA must act against Assad as it did against Saddam Hussein.

       However, we cannot make the same mistakes we made in Iraq. President Obama is now perceived throughout the world as indecisive when it comes to righting international wrongs. Putin and Russia, the Chinese and Iran do not fear him. Those countries do pretty much what they want to do. And in this case that means supporting the mass killer, Assad.

      So Mr. Obama has a unique opportunity not only to damage Assad but to show the world that we are the good guys and that those helping Assad are the bad guys.

      In order to do that the President must be methodical. First, he must convince other countries to support military strikes against Syria -- seems British, French and Turks are already on board. So that's a huge plus. But the President should secure the support of as many Arab countries as possible beginning with Saudi Arabia.

      Then President Obama should go to Congress and ask for a vote of affirmation on using military power. "Talking Points" believes Congress will support the action.

      Finally in conjunction with NATO the USA should devise a bombing campaign that will degrade Assad's forces without the mass killing of civilians and that will not be easy.

      At the same time, Mr. Obama must ask the Russians and the Chinese to support NATO action and get them on the record. Also, the USA should lay out explicitly how the barbaric Iranian government is helping the war criminal Assad. If the President does all those things he will gain a measure of respect throughout the world and perhaps bring down Assad.

      Now we all understand the situation inside Syria is chaotic with jihadist involved. But if America wants to be a world leader we can't allow a tyrant to violate international law by using chemicals weapons.

     



    this is not only plagiarism, but it's plagiarism from non other than bill o'reilly LMAO how embarrassing.

     

    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2013/08/28/bill-oreilly-what-president-obama-should-do-about-syria-0

     



    Thought it was a good point worth passing along, it says Talking Points in the the middle of the statement, not trying to pass it off as original.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    geez the apathy when it's the supported regime is staggering.

    “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
    âۥ Socrates

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    geez the apathy when it's the supported regime is staggering.

    “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
    âۥ Socrates



    Where's the apathy here...?

     

     

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    In response to G0DVERNMENT's comment:

    In response to newman09's comment:

     

    In response to G0DVERNMENT's comment:

     

    In response to newman09's comment:

     

     

    • Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad is a war criminal, a mass murderer and a baby killer. By using poison gas on Syrian civilians which is against the Geneva Convention, Assad is now responsible for thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths, according to the humanitarian group, Doctors without Borders. So there is no question that Assad must be held accountable.

      If you believe in American exceptionalism that this country has a moral obligation to save lives when it can all over the world, then you know the USA must act against Assad as it did against Saddam Hussein.

       However, we cannot make the same mistakes we made in Iraq. President Obama is now perceived throughout the world as indecisive when it comes to righting international wrongs. Putin and Russia, the Chinese and Iran do not fear him. Those countries do pretty much what they want to do. And in this case that means supporting the mass killer, Assad.

      So Mr. Obama has a unique opportunity not only to damage Assad but to show the world that we are the good guys and that those helping Assad are the bad guys.

      In order to do that the President must be methodical. First, he must convince other countries to support military strikes against Syria -- seems British, French and Turks are already on board. So that's a huge plus. But the President should secure the support of as many Arab countries as possible beginning with Saudi Arabia.

      Then President Obama should go to Congress and ask for a vote of affirmation on using military power. "Talking Points" believes Congress will support the action.

      Finally in conjunction with NATO the USA should devise a bombing campaign that will degrade Assad's forces without the mass killing of civilians and that will not be easy.

      At the same time, Mr. Obama must ask the Russians and the Chinese to support NATO action and get them on the record. Also, the USA should lay out explicitly how the barbaric Iranian government is helping the war criminal Assad. If the President does all those things he will gain a measure of respect throughout the world and perhaps bring down Assad.

      Now we all understand the situation inside Syria is chaotic with jihadist involved. But if America wants to be a world leader we can't allow a tyrant to violate international law by using chemicals weapons.

     



    this is not only plagiarism, but it's plagiarism from non other than bill o'reilly LMAO how embarrassing.

     

    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2013/08/28/bill-oreilly-what-president-obama-should-do-about-syria-0

     



    Thought it was a good point worth passing along, it says Talking Points in the the middle of the statement, not trying to pass it off as original.

     

     



    good point? are you kidding me?? the guy is a nutjob full of flawed logic. he says that we cannot make the same mistake that we made with iraq?? what was the mistake? it was accepting unproven rumors about weapons of mass destruction and blindly going to war. what is bill o'reilly calling for now? blindly going to war based on more unproven rumors! he is calling for us to make the same exact mistakes with syria as we did with iraq while simultaneously telling us that we can't make the same mistakes with syria as we did with iraq. talk about "doublethink"!!! 

     

     



    If you think that's good, you should check the weekly standard.

    Bill Kristol and his perpetually mistaken cronies (Rove, et al.) are beating the drum for war yet again as we speak...

    ...hoping that if they pretend reallly hard, people will forget how wrong they were in 2003.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    Bill Kristol and his perpetually mistaken cronies (Rove, et al.) are beating the drum for war yet again as we speak... 



    uh Obama is the one preparing to attack syria not anyone from 2003!

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    Bill Kristol and his perpetually mistaken cronies (Rove, et al.) are beating the drum for war yet again as we speak... 

     



    uh Obama is the one preparing to attack syria not anyone from 2003!

     



    Perhaps, but the aforementioned blunt tools are the ones cheering him on (while simultaneously opposing every single other thing he suggests).

    As someone said, "military action is not a policy; it's the result of a lack of policy."

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [/QUOTE]

    uh Obama is the one preparing to attack syria not anyone from 2003!

    [/QUOTE]

    Perhaps, but the aforementioned blunt tools are the ones cheering him on (while simultaneously opposing every single other thing he suggests).

    As someone said, "military action is not a policy; it's the result of a lack of policy."

     [/QUOTE]

    "cheering him on" oh support for an Obama action because they opposed others is bad now too. lmao

    gotcha

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    Syria's military is worn out.  Hence the reason for using chemical weapons.  Syria doesnt want an escalation.  But maybe Israel would see an escalation as an opportunity to launch an attack against Iran.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    Looks like we're backing down anyway.

    NYT's no smoking gun on syria govt using chemical weapons

    WH no decision has been made

    France: a diplomatic solution should be found

    UK pulls back forces

    Russia increases warships in mediterranean

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Iran says if, US strikes Syria they will attack Israel. What now? ignore?

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share