re: Syria

[dilloduck]

It's been like that for almost every American war, dude. It's not somehow different now, depending on who's in office.

We developed a big cabal of top secret intelligence that really guides these decisions, and for the citizens to get all red faced arguing with each other if a military action is right or wrong...........without having all of the facts............is literally arguing just because of a partisan o.c.d. to want to argue.

And it's amazing that the debate rages amongst millions.

Instead of, you know, outwardly demanding all of the facts? Noo00oo0o, we'd all rather "chime in" and debate the incomplete picture in our heads.

Our Country is great.
Its partisans are losers, and a poison.

We weren't attacked. We have no reason to go to war.

We do know that, don't we?

Seems reason enough to me.

Maybe we should be nice and silent until the powers that be deign to inform us?

I don't think so.

You should be silent in any argument when you're arguing from a position of ignorance and don't have all of the facts.

But I don't agree that we SHOULD be kept in the dark, no I'm definitely on board with doing things different than "SECRETLY" for sure.

But you won't catch me on the sidelines of a game catching glimpses of the front page of a five page game plan and start critiquing why it's all wrong.

You assuming we idiots here---there are plenty facts available to verify that our administration is lying to us. These are our leaders. They have a responsibility to us. We have elected them and hold them responsible. If they can't lead without lying then we need to find new leaders. They do not understand the concept of America.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

It's been like that for almost every American war, dude. It's not somehow different now, depending on who's in office.

We developed a big cabal of top secret intelligence that really guides these decisions, and for the citizens to get all red faced arguing with each other if a military action is right or wrong...........without having all of the facts............is literally arguing just because of a partisan o.c.d. to want to argue.

And it's amazing that the debate rages amongst millions.

Instead of, you know, outwardly demanding all of the facts? Noo00oo0o, we'd all rather "chime in" and debate the incomplete picture in our heads.

Our Country is great.
Its partisans are losers, and a poison.

We weren't attacked. We have no reason to go to war.

We do know that, don't we?

Seems reason enough to me.

Maybe we should be nice and silent until the powers that be deign to inform us?

I don't think so.

You should be silent in any argument when you're arguing from a position of ignorance and don't have all of the facts.

But I don't agree that we SHOULD be kept in the dark, no I'm definitely on board with doing things different than "SECRETLY" for sure.

But you won't catch me on the sidelines of a game catching glimpses of the front page of a five page game plan and start critiquing why it's all wrong.

Utter nonsense. No one has ALL the facts. People with access to the same facts can come to very different conclusions. People form opinions based on the information they have. It can be no other way.

Whining that you do not have enough information to come to a conclusion because there might be people who have more "facts" is an exercise in futility.

Should the government be more open? Sure.

Should the fact that they are not keep the American public from exercising its role in government? Hell no.

Such nihilistic nonsense.

 

[editec]

Settle down, kids. You're arguing without all of the facts, which is like golfing with no driver. It's like singing at Woodstock with no microphone.

I've said the same about Iraq as I'll say about Syria, Lybia, etc.

Which is: you don't have all of the facts, you don't have the same information on your table as our top military advisors and so you're damn sure arguing from a position of ignorance, no matter which side you're arguing.

How many adults can actually admit this simple truth to themselves and let their ego subside? Not many.



Not many.

​

 

[dilloduck]

You should be silent in any argument when you're arguing from a position of ignorance and don't have all of the facts.

But I don't agree that we SHOULD be kept in the dark, no I'm definitely on board with doing things different than "SECRETLY" for sure.

But you won't catch me on the sidelines of a game catching glimpses of the front page of a five page game plan and start critiquing why it's all wrong.

Utter nonsense. No one has ALL the facts. People with access to the same facts can come to very different conclusions. People form opinions based on the information they have. It can be no other way.

Whining that you do not have enough information to come to a conclusion because there might be people who have more "facts" is an exercise in futility.
Should the government be more open? Sure.

Should the fact that they are not keep the American public from exercising its role in government? Hell no.

Such nihilistic nonsense.

Strongly, strongly, both ethically, logically, realistically, ...........disagree with the part I made bigger.

Which is the entire point.

Well lets just cease all discussion and let the government do what it wishes. After all--the know best cuz they know secrets.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Of course, the real answer is that bombing people in order to save a much greater number of people, can be considered humanitarian.

It can't.

There is nothing humanitarian about dropping bombs and inevitably killing innocent people.

Right, if you were to save an entire village of children by killing one thug and one innocent bystander inadvertently, it's not humanitarian at all.

Why don't you volunteer to be the dead innocent bystander then?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Right, if you were to save an entire village of children by killing one thug and one innocent bystander inadvertently, it's not humanitarian at all.

Why don't you volunteer to be the dead innocent bystander then?

I would definitely volunteer myself in a situation where it was me versus a number of innocent kids as a choice. I haven't faced that situation, thankfully.

Well you can. Jump on a plane ans go to Syria and then let's see how humanitarian you think indiscriminate bombing is.

 

[testarosa]

It is funny when you think about the ways to get the two parties involved.

With Democrats, make it humanitarian. Because they care about other people.

With Republicans, make it about making money. Either wave a little oil or "no-bid" contracts in front of their greedy faces.

Funny how there didn't seem to be all this "concern" about the Christians in Iraq. I don't get that at all.

So bombing people is now humanitarian?

Of course, the real answer is that bombing people in order to save a much greater number of people, can be considered humanitarian.

^
That is utter bullshit. If this was a humanitarian issue, we'd have done something when the 100,000 people were killed.

This is who we're bombing with zero world support, except maybe as a paid hit from other Arab countries and without Congress.

It's flat w.r.o.n.g. and based on a agenda that they're lying about. I don't fall into the sheep/lied to line so easily.

Humanitarian - MY ASS.

Hands off’: Syrians form human shields outside possible US strike targets

As the US Congress inches closer to a decision on a military strike on Syria, citing allegations that Assad forces used chemical weapons against the civilian population, activists in Damascus are stepping up their protest against possible attacks.

“We are here to express our loyalty to our country in the face of American threats. We don’t want what they did in Iraq over chemical weapons claims to be done in our country,” one of the rally participants told RT.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I would definitely volunteer myself in a situation where it was me versus a number of innocent kids as a choice. I haven't faced that situation, thankfully.

Well you can. Jump on a plane ans go to Syria and then let's see how humanitarian you think indiscriminate bombing is.

That doesn't make any sense.

My standing there doesn't / won't save any children.

What kind of warped logic is that.

also - I'm not sure and neither are you if there's going to be indiscriminate bombing coming from the u.s.

You could take the place of the innocent bystander that in your mind is acceptable collateral damage in a "humanitarian" bombing campaign

That would truly be humanitarian.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Settle down, kids. You're arguing without all of the facts, which is like golfing with no driver. It's like singing at Woodstock with no microphone.

I've said the same about Iraq as I'll say about Syria, Lybia, etc.

Which is: you don't have all of the facts, you don't have the same information on your table as our top military advisors and so you're damn sure arguing from a position of ignorance, no matter which side you're arguing.

How many adults can actually admit this simple truth to themselves and let their ego subside? Not many.



Not many.

Of course we don't but we still shouldn't be involved.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That doesn't make any sense.

My standing there doesn't / won't save any children.

What kind of warped logic is that.

also - I'm not sure and neither are you if there's going to be indiscriminate bombing coming from the u.s.

You could take the place of the innocent bystander that in your mind is acceptable collateral damage in a "humanitarian" bombing campaign

That would truly be humanitarian.

No, that does not follow any sort of logic whatsoever.

If innocent bystanders were able to be "replaced," and knew they were about to be innocent bystanders, then they wouldn't be being killed in the first place. They'd stand up, run 100 yards.

The ****?

N/m dude.

Carry on.

You'll do anything to rationalize the "humanitarian" killing of innocent people as long as it's a US cruise missile that does it.

Sorry but we will be killing innocent people with no reasonable expectation that it will end chemical weapons use in Syria or anywhere else for that matter.

It's unacceptable and it is in no way humanitarian.

That you won't willingly be an innocent person killed in place of one you so blithely accept being killed is proof that you are no humanitarian.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Settle down, kids. You're arguing without all of the facts, which is like golfing with no driver. It's like singing at Woodstock with no microphone.

I've said the same about Iraq as I'll say about Syria, Lybia, etc.

Which is: you don't have all of the facts, you don't have the same information on your table as our top military advisors and so you're damn sure arguing from a position of ignorance, no matter which side you're arguing.

How many adults can actually admit this simple truth to themselves and let their ego subside? Not many.



Not many.

Of course we don't but we still shouldn't be involved.

Which you don't necessarily know, either.

I'm pretty sure we're there because this admin has screwed something up in the not too distant past. However, we shouldn't be there arming and fighting and giving assistance to a group of rebels who are just as savage as assads group.