• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

who killed these babies ?

I doubt it, because they worked so hard blaming Bush for NOT finding NBC weapons. It would have runined their entire narrative.

I think you are assuming a consistency that does not exist in the same crowd that also insists that stimulus-war-like spending (as in WWII) revives the economy, and that the Iraq war was so expensive it was economically disastrous.
 
Because we waited to be attacked, before becoming involved, we lost nearly a half million Americans on the battlefield.

Umm, and we wouldn’t have lost half a million on the battlefield otherwise?

BTW, where in our ideals does it indicate we are supposed to START wars? I know we have a long history of doing so when it was in the interests of our "Manifest Destiny" against a less technologically advanced group…like Native Americans, or Mexico, or Spain.

Probably from our recent history in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan I bet. All real good ideas.

There was an uprising, post-Desert Storm, that we should have supported, but didn't.

Really, and you don’t see a problem with unilateral intervention that might just lead to the same tactics by foreign powers? Say Russia, China, India, Israel or w/e seeing our example and using it to justify their actions or acting to create military spheres of influence against us?

This is what I'm talking about...

2009

Oh, so you DID mean declaring a war on Iran. As if that would not unite the Iranian people against us, or if not that, end up pissing off Pakistan, Russia and who knows who else leading to possible counter-intervention to gain influence over Iran.

I think it's safe to say that the cats in their now are much worse than the Shah ever thought of being and I doubt that the Islamofacists would hate us any less, had he not been there. Don't forget, the dude that proceeded the Shah was allying himself with the Soviets. Mosa Deg also dissolved parliament and the constitution, much the same way that Morsi recently did in Egypt

Again, much of this is due to our past interventionist policies. The Islamic factions gained power because instead of supporting pro-democratic groups we supported the Shah’s reign of terror. As for Egypt? Our support of Israel (for better or worse) is part of the problem with that state.

The Tootsi and the Hutu were at each other long before the Europeans showed up. Just because they've been going at it for a thousand years, doesn't mean they don't have to catch up with the rest of the world.

Exactly, so tell me how OUR intervention would change this in any significant way? Perhaps you were hoping to get stationed there as part of a peace-keeping force???

The Fillipinos are our friends; the South Koreans; Grenadans, etc.

The South Koreans are our friends because we’re the only thing keeping them from war with North Korea. The Philippinos? I lived there for three years…if you think they LIKE Americans you’ve been reading too much historical propaganda. Better to say they don’t actively dislike us much. Their government remains friendly, primarily due to concerns over Communist China’s goals in Southeast Asia.

Now if you want to raise a band of volunteer mercenaries and go fight in such conflicts, be my guest. Otherwise, history is more on my side than yours.
 
Umm, and we wouldn’t have lost half a million on the battlefield otherwise?
IMO, no we wouldn't have.
BTW, where in our ideals does it indicate we are supposed to START wars? I know we have a long history of doing so when it was in the interests of our "Manifest Destiny" against a less technologically advanced group…like Native Americans, or Mexico, or Spain.
The world has gotten much smaller. Smaller, in the sense that the oceans no long impede our enemies from doing us harm, on our own soil.
Probably from our recent history in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan I bet. All real good ideas.
Just imagine the concequences, had we NOT become involved. You can't assume that without our involvement, everything would have just turned out ok.
Really, and you don’t see a problem with unilateral intervention that might just lead to the same tactics by foreign powers? Say Russia, China, India, Israel or w/e seeing our example and using it to justify their actions or acting to create military spheres of influence against us?
Surely you're informed enough to know that that is already happening?
Oh, so you DID mean declaring a war on Iran. As if that would not unite the Iranian people against us, or if not that, end up pissing off Pakistan, Russia and who knows who else leading to possible counter-intervention to gain influence over Iran.
There are more ways to intervene than going to war. Stop having such a narrow-minded view on matters.
Again, much of this is due to our past interventionist policies. The Islamic factions gained power because instead of supporting pro-democratic groups we supported the Shah’s reign of terror. As for Egypt? Our support of Israel (for better or worse) is part of the problem with that state.
The islamofacists blame the western culture for everything. We could have never become involved and denounced Israel and the islamofacists would still hate us, because they hate everything western. The isalmofacists have been around for 700 years. This isn't something that just started a few decades ago, because of what the United States did.
Exactly, so tell me how OUR intervention would change this in any significant way? Perhaps you were hoping to get stationed there as part of a peace-keeping force???
Doing nothing obviously didn't work.The South Koreans are our friends because we’re the only thing keeping them from war with North Korea. The Philippinos? I lived there for three years…if you think they LIKE Americans you’ve been reading too much historical propaganda. Better to say they don’t actively dislike us much. Their government remains friendly, primarily due to concerns over Communist China’s goals in Southeast Asia.Now if you want to raise a band of volunteer mercenaries and go fight in such conflicts, be my guest. Otherwise, history is more on my side than yours.[/QUOTE]I'm afraid it's not, my friend.
 
I think you are assuming a consistency that does not exist in the same crowd that also insists that stimulus-war-like spending (as in WWII) revives the economy, and that the Iraq war was so expensive it was economically disastrous.

Yeah, but they hate Bush too much to take the chance of legitimizing him.
 
Just imagine the concequences, had we NOT become involved. You can't assume that without our involvement, everything would have just turned out ok.

Well, realize the Japanese attacked us because things weren’t going all that well for them thanks to our economic embargo. They’d already been at war with China since 1937, 5 years before they attacked us. That was significantly longer than they expected and they didn’t do much better after they declared war on us. It’s entirely possible that they would have made peace with China if they hadn’t attacked us, rather than stay bogged down in a “Vietnam” of their own.

Surely you're informed enough to know that that is already happening?

I’m informed enough to know we’d have had a friendly Iran if we hadn’t backed the Shah and instead allowed democratic forces to take power long before it became an Islamic revolution. Then we’d really be in a better position in the Middle East than we are today.

The islamofacists blame the western culture for everything. We could have never become involved and denounced Israel and the islamofacists would still hate us, because they hate everything western. The isalmofacists have been around for 700 years. This isn't something that just started a few decades ago, because of what the United States did. Doing nothing obviously didn't work.

That’s an “interesting” slant on history. I’m not sure I quite agree but I can see where you might get that opinion from.

I'm afraid it's not, my friend.

Let’s see. We had a chance to make friends with Vietnam but instead we chose to support return of the land to the French; oops the “Vietnam War.” We had a chance to establish decent relations with Cuba but instead we isolated it and turned it into a military proxy for the Soviet Union. A democratic election led to a socialist government in Nicaragua and we chose to undermine it. We backed feudal military dictatorships in most of the nations of Central and South America and see all the wonderful friends we made? We got into drug dealing with Iran-Contra; we sent troop into Somalia and see how well that turned out? Then there was Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, on and on and on and on……

So of course you’re right, history doesn’t back me.
 
Last edited:
What about not so dubious sources?

All sources are dubious when you're inclined to disbelieve the reporting - likewise, all sources are reliable when you're inclined to believe the reporting.

That is the sad state of affairs in the once proud profession of journalism and the depths to which it is sunk in the age of agenda news.
 
I don't think the US knows who to believe was responsible for the chemical attack. I don't. If it was the rebels, it might have been in order to provoke foreign intervention. The US has been hesitant to help the rebels for fear they may be working with Al Qaeada.


Obama weighs possible military response after Syria chemical attack | Reuters

USA really helped these rebels .

Btw.....this new battle group to enter the swing of things. Is none other than those who we have been training in Jordan and Turkey. Directly under our supervision. I was thinking which Neo Con or Neo lib came up with the name.
 
Google Translate

It's a totalitarian government agency in charge of all news on the island.

Nice source.

was USA totalitarian while bombing the japanese babies ,eco ?


USA can kill the other babies ?

you know well that l can never accept any of these

l googled it for you ,no need to thank .)

http://rt.com/news/rebel-tunnel-damascus-chemical-940/comments/page-9/


oh my god ,look what l found



they admit it but keep arming these monsters ( USA already lets Turkey support these monsters for a long time )


Decision to arm Syrian rebels was reached weeks ago, U.S. officials say

The White House said the final push came this week after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded with “high certainty” that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces had used chemical weapons against the rebels.

But U.S. officials said that the determination to send weapons had been made weeks ago and that the chemical weapons finding provided fresh justification to act.


what a coincidence


http://articles.washingtonpost.com/..._syrian-rebels-chemical-weapons-u-s-officials

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2b4_1377229631

The Syrian army has discovered a storehouse belonging to rebels in
the Damascus area of Jobar, where toxic chemical substances – including
chlorine – have been produced and kept, State TV reported.
Military sources reported that the militants “were preparing to fire
mortars in the suburbs of the capital and were going to pack missiles
with chemical warheads.”
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2b4_1377229631#ZIXb4yXwOmwK6o7C.99

these sub human monsters killed our people in last may to provoke turkey to attack syria

all the western imperialist part is aware that all the maps have to be changed in this region

thats why the civilized west needs to support every conflict ,every war ,every rebellion in these countries

provoke ,divide ,govern , a typical western policy



http://www.plenglish.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1794051&Itemid=1
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/05/syrian-rebels-admit-terrorist-bombing.html
 
Last edited:
We all did.

By participating in religious wars since the Crusades, agitating sectarian violence for millennia, feeding into secular schisms, and it hasn't changed much since the 11th Century and before. Some parts of the world like the US, have progressed, but other areas of the world haven't changed much since the 7th Century when Muhammad was alive.

Secular violence has killed more humans than any other disease in the history of the world. Even the Black Plague was a mild head cold compared to killing that takes place in the name of God.

Why did I say we all did? Because some feel that what happens in some other part of the world is not our problem. On the other hand, some think that it's our destiny to take our religion (democracy and capitalism in some cases, or a different religion of God in others) to everyone around the world. We have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable, not just here in our own country, but elsewhere as well. We did so in the Balkans, and those we protected were Muslims, so their religion wasn't a factor to us, although that's why they were being exterminated. We did so in Europe in WWII, where religion was also the reason for the genocide, but religion wasn't the reason we got involved. But we tend to look the other way lately when it's politically incorrect however, especially if there's oil involved, or it could effect our oil supply.

This particular example of genocide is a little different than what we've seen on the past from a geopolitical standpoint, but the fact that it could inflame the Middle East and effect our oil supply makes it a hot potato. The fact that Russia and China have opposed any intervention has also scared, yes scared our politicians in power. But the horror is no less real, and our responsibility to protect the vulnerable is no less relieved.

Sitting back and watching is not what we as a capable group in the human race should do. Making blustery statements about red-lines and then doing nothing isn't either. Using the excuse of having to get approval from the UN, which cannot agree on much of anything, and Russia or China could veto any resolution, isn't either. Getting a coalition together of like minded nations is a good idea, but it should not be a 'go/no go' line we have to cross before we take action to protect these babies.

A strategy of actions that can progressively escalate when and if required, such as what President Obama is reportedly looking into now, is exactly what we should be doing. Do I like it? No. Does that mean I will not support the President if he makes the decision and gives the order? Of course not. Most things that are worth doing are hard, and uncomfortable. And the choice to use force to protect the vulnerable is no different.

We should still stand for something in this world. Not expansion of our power and control, but standing for human rights and protection of the vulnerable. We should protect our economic interest around the world as well, but protecting the least among us from genocide shouldn't even be considered a debatable political choice. There is no choice, because the alternative to action is to be complicit in the murder of these children and those that follow, and that... is an unthinkable result, and is a thought I would not want to live with if I were the President.
bosnian women ,children

they were saved after being raped ,killed

like jews

what a pity
 
Bull****. I had nothing to do with it. I remember when we helped in the wake of the earthquake in Haitii, we were accused of "occupying" it. We'll be bashed whatever we do or don't do and I'm pretty tired of it myself.

l dont always see intelligent conservatives around but when l see l really like it cotton
 
That al depends. If there's a vettable "good guy", then we should become involved. In the case of Syria, we would be helping the bad guys, no matter who we sided with.

Personally, I believe that if we did become involved, I would like to see us target government AND rebel units.

l want to " like " it

may l ?
 
-----------

Why would he bother?
The invasion was going to happen and exporting his WMD's wouldn't have saved his sorry ass.

USA invaded iraq ?

but l am condemned by some honest patriots when l say the same thing

haha:lol:
 
There's been tons of verification that Hussein moved his NBC weapons to Syria; both from eyewitnesses and Israeli intelligence services.

nice source ,eco do you see it ? :lol:

especially if it is against saddam :lol:
 
-------------
I gotta be honest, eco.
I hear so much dreck from both sides of the fence, that, at this point, I don't know what to believe.
As Medusa opined in her OP, if Assad is winning, why would he do this?

very true
 
1) To make sure he keeps winning.

2) To win even quicker. The sooner the war ends, the better off the winner will be.

3) We were winning against the Japanese during WW2, but we still nuked their asses.


you must be anti american

if l make the same statement


l have to be accused of being a hater

these japanese babies were not ass

a little heart
 
Last edited:
I doubt it, because they worked so hard blaming Bush for NOT finding NBC weapons. It would have runined their entire narrative.

jonior moron admitted that they couldnt find taht kind of weapon in iraq

that guy is a real jerk ,both moron and messiah
 
Back
Top Bottom