turtlespeed 212 #1 September 5, 2013 He and McCain are a piece of work. Maybe they should give that guy a medal and a beer summit.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NorrinRadd 0 #2 September 5, 2013 My understanding is that the US government wants to perform strikes to discourage the use of chemical weapons... am I wrong? If that is the case, then it is not the people fighting in the civil war that are the protectees, but rather the innocent bystanders and civilians who are trying to stay out of the fighting, but would get hurt or killed by chemical weapons.Why drive myself crazy trying to be normal, when I am already at crazy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #3 September 5, 2013 NorrinRaddMy understanding is that the US government wants to perform strikes to discourage the use of chemical weapons... am I wrong? If that is the case, then it is not the people fighting in the civil war that are the protectees, but rather the innocent bystanders and civilians who are trying to stay out of the fighting, but would get hurt or killed by chemical weapons. Does it not help one side when you weaken the other?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 September 5, 2013 turtlespeed He and McCain are a piece of work. Maybe they should give that guy a medal and a beer summit. individual actions by people in a civil war are often not pretty. The US Civil War being no exception. Or war in general. When the dynamic is kill or be killed, rational thought and 'civil' behavior go out the door to more base emotional action. Remember that popular, if unconfirmed, recollection of how General Pershing scared off Muslims attacks being exeucting a bunch of them with bullets soaked in pig blood. That doesn't speak well for us (generic Americans) as that story was happily circulated around as a Final Solution to our terrorism problem. Assad going away should be a net positive, even if some shitty replacement comes along. Assad has been killing thousands of his people, violated the NPT with a secret nuclear weapons development plant, and continues to be a threat to our ally, Israel. If we want to espouse the principles of democracy, there's little reason to support Assad over the other side at this time, even if it has al-queda elements in it. It also sends a message to that region that we won't support a ruthless dictator just to oppose al queda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NorrinRadd 0 #5 September 5, 2013 Sure! But I have my doubts that when the US government said "lets go in there and stop chemical weapons" they were saying "Lets aid heart eating rebels". And as far as I know, they would get antsy if the rebels were using chemical weapons too.Why drive myself crazy trying to be normal, when I am already at crazy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #6 September 6, 2013 Oh, Yeah, I bet he IS in favor. I saw an interview with the general and he says that the delay is going to hurt the magnitude of the impact the strike will have now, and should be stronger and sooner.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
