Iraq, people being butchered ok..... Sudan and Syria not ok. Got it! I now understand liberal logic!!!
Is it a liberal or conservative issue to care that a country is slaughtering children and infants? Sometimes the politics need to be left at the door. I know that it is asking a lot in a nation that has been twisted into seeing everything through that prism.
Its the responsibility of the entire free world to intervene when these types of atrocities are committed. It should not fall to the hands of the United States only. But sitting on the sidelines while this takes place is reprehensible. It truly is.
Maybe we would not be so jaded to intervene-and our military not so overburdened-had we not have been lied to and manipulated (Gulf of Tonkin, remember the Maine, yellow cake, manifest destiny, the list goes on and on) into expending all that blood and treasure. Then at this moment, leaders could make a case, with true conviction, to the American people about stopping the slaughtering of these infants and toddlers.
The bloodstained past of Saddam's sons
By David Blair in Baghdad
12:01AM BST 23 Jul 2003
Like grisly Shakespearean characters, Saddam Hussein's two sons symbolised everything that was rotten about their oppressed country.
The news that Uday and Qusay Hussein were killed inside the spacious house on the outskirts of Mosul in northern Iraq will please all but a handful of their compatriots.
Uday, the psychopathic playboy, and Qusay, the cold, calculating and ruthless heir apparent, summed up the two sides of Saddam's Iraq. They were living proof of how their father's brand of tyranny combined wanton brutality with the cunning acumen that won more than three decades of dominance.
Of the two, Uday held direct, personal responsibility for the greater number of crimes, ranging from murder and kidnapping to rape and torture.
But Qusay may well have had more blood on his hands, simply because he wielded far more power than his increasingly marginalised elder brother, whose excesses were embarrassing even by Saddam's standards.
As such, I'd call it Liberal, as (IMO) thats the side of Fantasy-based Utopiansism.
Or "Bush'ian New World Order'ism", the idea that we are teh Lords of Earth, and all must do as we say.
By the way, Saddam Hussain killed far more Iraqi's than Assad has killed Syrians. Just an FYI.
My opinion is not based on Politics.Sometimes the politics need to be left at the door.
No it isnt.Its the responsibility of the entire free world to intervene when these types of atrocities are committed.
Our own Revolution, and Civil War, helped make us what we are today. Should France, Russia and Prussia have "intervened" int he Revolutionary and/or Civil War, perhaps placing us back under Britich control, or perhaps forcing the North to accept an Independant south, in order to "stop the slaughtering of children"?
Again, silly utopianism, and a disturbing lack of understanding of History.
also, standard issue Liberalism at work...."won't SOMEBODY do something???" If you feel so strongly....YOU do soemthing, go on over and fight for the Rebels. Asking "everyone" to suffer to placate YOUR guilt or morality is Liberalism (or Bushian NWO) at it's worst.
Maybe we will both be doing some reading this summer.....
Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 06-08-2012 at 11:30 AM.
I said our Wars were not ended by foreign fiat by massive foreign interests invading, occupying and controling out entire nation. Read next time.
I assure you Teach, I can run circles around you when it comes to Millitary History. You're better served with your original bleeding heart utopian arguments.
By the way, where was all this caring of poor sad foreign children when Saddam Hussain killed tens of thousands of Kurds with weapons of mass destruction (gas), including plenty of women and children? Is your morality late coming, or driven only by your guy being in the Presidency? Speaking of which, if you care so much, how can you vote for a man who has consciously chosen to do nothing, with at least a strong reason why being politics?
I'll also ask again, if you feel so strongly about it, what the **** are YOU doing about other than whining on a message board about it?
Grab a rifle, stop whining, and go protect those innocent slaughtered children you seem to care so deeply about yourself.
Otherwise, stop demanding WE all suffer to calm YOUR qivering utopian morality by acting as a world dominating tyrant international super-cop, willing and able to invade anyone anytime, Mr. IntelligentBushFan.
While officially neutral, coming off a beating in the 7 Years War France was very helpful to the US in the Revolution. The decisive Battle of Yorktown, Virginia where 1000s of French soldiers supported by French ships/sailors aiding teh rebels ring a bell? This was the equivalent of an WW2 Allied multi-national force.
It's an accident that "Lafayette" and "Rochambeau" are such common placenames in the original colonies?
Other than as an old joke nickname for the Jets, does the word Hessians also strike a chord? Hesse at the time was not part of Prussia but rented out its soldiers to Britain.
Britain and France were also officially neutral in the War Between The States but almost entered the fray (Google the Trent Affair, CSS Stonewall for a few clues)
French weaponry either through design or manufacture was deployed - the Minie' rifle in particular was quite devastating.
(but not as devastating as the Minie' skirt )
Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-08-2012 at 12:04 PM.
French help in the Rev. war =/= in any way the scope of U.S. Invasion and Occupation of places like Iraq or Afghanistan, or the kind of effort and investment that would be required in pacifying Civil War Syria. As Iraq and Afghanistan shows all too well, even a massive U.S. occupational presense cannot and will not end "the slaughter of children" or end teh underlying conflict.
The French also had a direct and vital national interest in the Rev. War and Wars involving England, as they had been (and continued to) have ongoing millitary conflict against Britain and her interests, and still had their own territorial posessions and ambitions in North America. Specificly, France was interested in regaining lost posessions (to England) and access to markets and more as a result of their intervention and victory. A far cry from the situation between the U.S. and Syria today.
I always find it interesting when two exceptionally different and traditionally unreconcilable "sides" in our political system manage to find strong agreement.....in this case, in the idea of a proactive, non-defensive, "world-cop" humanitarian millitary invasion and occupation of a sovreign country half the world away, in a Civil War that does not involve any vital U.S. interests.
Last edited by Warfish; 06-08-2012 at 12:30 PM.
What should happen is the Security Council should authorize the destruction of regime targets unless Assad steps down and the killing stops. But that won't happen - no way either China or Russia would allow that to go through given that Assad's repression is purely internal and that would be very bad precedent for them - and any such strikes without Security Council cover simply won't happen.
I'd be happy if we could get the Kennedys to stop killing women.
Then, on to Syria! tallyho!