Syria: they're using chemical weapons...

[BigRob]

I can't find anything in your post in which I agree.

If credibility is the most important thing in international relations, then it is apparent the US has very little. You would go to war over credibility....that is a bunch of BS...young men die and kill for your stupid credibility. Most Neocon of you.

I would go to war to protect American interests, and if I set "red lines", I would enforce them.

I could care less what the Syrians do to each other...or any other nation for that matter. It is none of our business and intervening does not good. I would think you would have learned that by now...after decades of Neocon/Progressive FAILED foreign interventions.

What happens around the world matters to us, and impacts us in many ways. To simply stick our head in the sand and ignore it only makes the problem worse down the road.

Regarding the nations you mentioned, where have you been these past few years? Our dumb-ass politicians have been threatening all those nations repeatedly. Have our threats done any good? Of course not, because we have no credibility.

We have not established "red lines" and then blatently ignored them. We have made veiled threats at best. There is a huge difference.

Regarding BO not being foolish because he has been successful against the brain dead Rs, do you want to restate that? He is a fool, just as all the Neocon and progressive Rs are.

No, I don't want to restate that. I dislike Obama as much as the next person, but in 5 years he has left our party in ruins.

The only effective option for America is NONINTERVENTION. That would be true leadership and it stops people from killing and dying.

Nonintervention would not automatically keep people from dying. It would most likely cause more people to die ultimately. I can agree with many aspects of the theory, but I fully support pursuing our own interests abroad.

 

[Cruella]

Israel has now bombed Syrian storages of Iranian missiles going to Hezbollah in Lebanon and now Syria is calling that an act of war. Iran is salivating to bomb Israel off the map.

The ME is a powder keg ready to blow......and we have Little Lord Fauntleroy in the White House

 

[dogtowner]

Israel has now bombed Syrian storages of Iranian missiles going to Hezbollah in Lebanon and now Syria is calling that an act of war. Iran is salivating to bomb Israel off the map.

The ME is a powder keg ready to blow......and we have Little Lord Fauntleroy in the White House

I'm predicting blue and green lines to "clarify" the red lines followed by some sternley worded tweets followed by another command performance from J Zee or Niki Menage or some gala to divert attention until all the troublesome people can be shipped off to Anartica or next to Luca Brazzi and the fishes.

 

[Gipper]

I would go to war to protect American interests, and if I set "red lines", I would enforce them.



What happens around the world matters to us, and impacts us in many ways. To simply stick our head in the sand and ignore it only makes the problem worse down the road.



We have not established "red lines" and then blatently ignored them. We have made veiled threats at best. There is a huge difference.



No, I don't want to restate that. I dislike Obama as much as the next person, but in 5 years he has left our party in ruins.



Nonintervention would not automatically keep people from dying. It would most likely cause more people to die ultimately. I can agree with many aspects of the theory, but I fully support pursuing our own interests abroad.

How nice of you to sacrifice the lives of others with your interventionist policy. Why don't you go do the fighting to impose your foolish American interest BS....I am an American and the interests you speak of, are not mine.

I do not believe in stinking our head in the sand (funny how you Neocons always say that). War is the state imposing its will on the people..taking more and more of our liberties...after over a hundred years of interventions, one would think you would understand that by now.

BO beating the Rs does not mean he is a genius...he is still a fool. It means he beat a valueless feeble minded party. As I have said elsewhere on this forum, the Rs need to go the way of the Whigs. They suck....and they are not MY party, so please refrain with the use of the word "our."

Can you provide any proof to back your statement that nonintervention would lead to more people dying when compared to your constant interventions, which by the way, not only kill lots of people, but is bankrupting the nation?

Our policy toward foreign nations should be dealing openly and fairly with all and not involving ourselves in their internal affairs. The interests you wish to protect are the interests of the world's largest corporations and the federal government. Those are not American interests. They are the interests of the elite.

 

[dogtowner]

Six million "undesirables" died while non-interventionists non intervened and thats not counting all the rest.
A million give or take in Rwanda.
A couple million in Cambodia.

Kinda starts adding up.

There is no such thing as minding your own business on a planet thats become this small.

 

[Aus22]

If we had not intervene in Vietnam ,and Cambodia I doubt if Pol Pot would have got so much power. He was persecuting people who were like Westerners, wearing glasses or not doing manual work. He was copying the Communist Cultural revolution in China but far worst.

It was the Vietnamese army that emerge after the American left that stop it.

Taking sides in Rwanda would not have help. Now many Africans countries are being effected by Tatu reprisals.

 

[dogtowner]

If we had not intervene in Vietnam ,and Cambodia I doubt if Pol Pot would have got so much power. He was persecuting people who were like Westerners, wearing glasses or not doing manual work. He was copying the Communist Cultural revolution in China but far worst.

It was the Vietnamese army that emerge after the American left that stop it.

Taking sides in Rwanda would not have help. Now many Africans countries are being effected by Tatu reprisals.

dead people or no dead people, that is the question.

 

[Aus22]

I am not sure what you mean. People can die in any circumstances but war guarantees it. I doubt if intervention results in less casualties.

 

[dogtowner]

how interesting that you equate murder with warfare

 

[Cruella]

Unintended collateral damage in warfare is one thing, but for the head of a country to deliberately mass murder his own unarmed civilians is something else entirely.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Dogtower and Texas, I never said the hostages were taken under Reagan just that he made a deal with Iran to release the hostages. This included selling Hawk missiles for their war with Iraq.I am happy with the demise of the Soviet Union. It had more to do with Gorbachev than Reagan

And even Carter...since it was Afghanistan that killed the USSR. Not Reagan's words.

 

[Texas_tea]

And even Carter...since it was Afghanistan that killed the USSR. Not Reagan's words.

Is it painful to drink that much kool-aid .....
I'm just askin ...

 

[Aus22]

Dogtower, Murder does take place in war but not all wars are murder. Mos British people think the killing of General Gordon in Sudan was murder. However they may not see the British reprisal as murder.The killing of people outside the battle lines is to me murder. I do not think the WW1 or 2 were murder by the fighting armies but murder did take place in these wars. The halucast for example. I think the killingl of Nazi and Japanese war criminals was not murder because they had a trial.

Pocket fullof shels the huge cost of the Russian army did contribute to the end of the Cold war . I suspect the cost of the American army may have contribute several Presidents to try and reach disarnament which also led to the end of the cold war.

 

[dogtowner]

Is it painful to drink that much kool-aid .....
I'm just askin ...

oh come on Tex, Jimmuh DID not send a team to the USSR Olympics, that was devastating !

 

[dogtowner]

Dogtower, Murder does take place in war but not all wars are murder. Mos British people think the killing of General Gordon in Sudan was murder. However they may not see the British reprisal as murder.The killing of people outside the battle lines is to me murder. I do not think the WW1 or 2 were murder by the fighting armies but murder did take place in these wars. The halucast for example. I think the killingl of Nazi and Japanese war criminals was not murder because they had a trial.

Pocket fullof shels the huge cost of the Russian army did contribute to the end of the Cold war . I suspect the cost of the American army may have contribute several Presidents to try and reach disarnament which also led to the end of the cold war.

no question the price tag of USSR military swamped it. Carter slashed th4 military (and intel) while Reagan expanded it as he saw that USSR was teetering on the edge and it wouldnt take much to sink them.