My response is simply this...if you don't like the messenger simply superimpose the face of someone you'd find more appealing and still listen to the message.
Everything he has stated is rational, reasonable, and responsible. Trying to undermine the message with fallacious comparisons simply because the messenger is a political opponent is disingenuous.
If there is actual evidence then our duty is to reveal it. Claiming how it was obtained is a secret, therefore we can't show it demands we grant our government a level of trust it has yet to prove itself worthy of. Basically, our government lies to us ALL THE TIME!
It is also true that the Syrian government has requested investigation of the incident, so why must we act militarily before such an investigation by NEUTRAL parties is concluded?
Finally, it is also true that we will inevitably cause "collateral damage" among the civilian population. Strange that we'd think ourselves morally justified to cause such harm on the grounds that such harm has already been caused.
It is irrelevent that the message comes from Putin, it is still a valid message nonetheless.
Fair enough. However, one must ultimately remember that the situation in question does not exist within any kind of political or international vacuum.
We ultimately have to ask ourselves just what it is exactly that Putin's Russia (as well as Iran, China, North Korea, and any number of other authoritarian governments which happen to be opposed to our interests) ultimately have to gain here by preventing the United States from toppling Assad's regime. Backing down from a confrontation in Syria now could very well destroy what little international credibility the Obama Administration has left, and encourage nations like Iran and North Korea to behave more boldly without fear of repercussion.
After all, what possible basis could we be said to have for criticizing nuclear weapons testing in any nation if we allow Bashar Assad to use chemical weapons on his people with more or less total impunity?
Putin has absolutely no problem with any of these scenarios, simply because breaking back of Western global power in general, and American global hegemony in particular, has been one of his foremost goals basically since day one of his administration.
If you were to find yourself lost in the woods on a stormy night, and a seemingly friendly bear happened along and made a very reasonable argument for why it would probably be a good idea to spend the night in his cave, sheltered from the elements, would
you not be more than a little apprehensive about taking him up on it?
Needless to say, it is entirely possible for someone to say
exactly the right things for all of the wrong reasons. :lol:
Perhaps because we, all of us are peaceful people. We do not want war even if it is already occurring. We may want to avoid it and would rather accept a peaceful lie than a required truthful ugly war.
All too true, unfortunately.
It'd be a shame if the modern Western World were to ultimately wind up repeating the mistakes of such historical wet blankets as Neville Chamberlain in our quest for "peace" uber alles.
