Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 39 of 39

Thread: More children are slaughtered; the world does nothing

  1. #21
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4486931]This is an abomination, an affront to any decent person. [B]Children, infants,[/B] are being slaughtered and the powers around the world do nothing of substance. President Obama, more concerned about reelection and campaigning, is failing to lead.

    This is a political forum so I would like to throw out the following question; after reading this story and watching the video, what can be done?[/QUOTE]

    We could encourage the Turks and Saudis to arm the rebels. We could push the Arab League to institute a no fly zone above Syria. If we had a leader we could work on a number of potential solutions. The brutal Syrian regime is an ally to Iran. A regime change there would be a blow to our enemy. It makes sense to come up with a responsible and international consensus to deal with the slaughter happening there. Without leadership unfortunately the issue will likely have to wait until Obama is replaced in November.

  2. #22
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    18,637
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Austin;4487232]+10000

    It's incredibly annoying that America is constantly criticized for attempting to be the World Police but when nobody is doing anything everybody turns to America and asks why they aren't doing anything.

    It's a no-win situation. The fact of the matter is that America doesn't want to get into another war -- the sacrifice in money and lives isn't worth it. The fact that the Syrian government has the backing of Russia doesn't make it any more appealing either...[/QUOTE]

    I agree. Everyone looks to us to help and then is quick to blame us when things don't go smoothly. Let them win their freedom like we did. Enough nation building. Let's fix ourselves. Before we know it China is going to be running the world. We need to get our ac together. When we do that then we can go back to being the police.

  3. #23
    All League
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,565
    Post Thanks / Like
    Iraq, people being butchered ok..... Sudan and Syria not ok. Got it! I now understand liberal logic!!!:yes:

  4. #24
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    18,637
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=acepepe;4487254]Iraq, people being butchered ok..... Sudan and Syria not ok. Got it! I now understand liberal logic!!!:yes:[/QUOTE]

    Exactly.

  5. #25
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4487224]With Panetta stating earlier this week that we are warring with Pakistan (FATA), we are now expanding our already over expanded resources even more. As horrific as things have been in Syria, I don't see how much more we can ask of our military.

    Particularly when Americans who don't and won't serve desire even more tax cuts. Who will pay for war in Syria?

    However, Obama may find a way to repay his Def Con donors with another war. The Def Con major players are rewarding Obama heavily in this election. Generally they lean republican but this listing shows that they lean towards Obama

    [url]http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/sectorallc.php?cycle=2012[/url][/QUOTE]

    How much will it cost to encourage Saudi Arabia and Turkey to arm and equip the rebels? The idea of going to war with Syria is absurd. No one has suggested it.

  6. #26
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,421
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4487225]So be it.

    I, for one, am very tired of having been forced into the position of World Policeman. I'm tired of paying for it. I'm tired of being blamed for it. And I'm tired of spending US lives on it.

    Put simply, and perhaps coldly, we are not responsible fo r the lives of kids in Syria. It's tragic, but we have no shortage of tragic kid situations here in the US, and our money and effort should be spent first, foremost and always on OUR people.

    And again, a Nation has a right to self-determine, and sometimes that right has to be earned with blood, just like our own. It's not our place, nor should it be, to be picking winners and losers in a Civil War 9,000 miles from our shores.

    If anyone should be involved, it should be the United Nations, with the US providing only a small funding/manpower contribution, and the VAST majority of funding/manpower coming from Syria's neighbors. If they will not provide, why should we? [B]Apart from Utopian dreams from bleeding heart liberals, of course...[/B]

    This was my view on Iraq.

    This was my view on Libya.

    This is my view on Syria.

    The only legitimate conflict we're involved in is/has been our worst run, under both Presidents, and that is Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]

    :rolleyes:

    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.

  7. #27
    All League
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,565
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4487309]:rolleyes:

    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.[/QUOTE]

    GOT IT!!!


    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.

  8. #28
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,644
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4487309]:rolleyes:

    Is it a liberal or conservative issue to care that a country is slaughtering children and infants?[/quote]

    It's Arrogant Self-Important Utopianism to think that WE somehow have the power, and the responsabillity, to stop any and all "sluaghtering of children and infants" in the world, or to end all Wars that what, we don't approve of?

    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.

    [QUOTE]Sometimes the politics need to be left at the door.[/QUOTE]

    My opinion is not based on Politics.

    [QUOTE]Its the responsibility of the entire free world to intervene when these types of atrocities are committed.[/QUOTE]

    No it isnt.

    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.

  9. #29
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,421
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4487337]It's Arrogant Self-Important Utopianism to think that WE somehow have the power, and the responsabillity, to stop any and all "sluaghtering of children and infants" in the world, or to end all Wars that what, we don't approve of?

    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.



    No it isnt.

    [B]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"?[/B]

    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.[/QUOTE]

    wait, so you don't think other countries were involved in the American Revolution?

    [url]http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090108140124AACpajO[/url]

    Civil War?

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_in_the_American_Civil_War[/url]

    Maybe we will both be doing some reading this summer.....;)
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 06-08-2012 at 11:30 AM.

  10. #30
    All League
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,565
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4487337]It's Arrogant Self-Important Utopianism to think that WE somehow have the power, and the responsabillity, to stop any and all "sluaghtering of children and infants" in the world, or to end all Wars that what, we don't approve of?

    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.



    No it isnt.

    Our own Revolution, and Civil War, helped make us what we are today. [COLOR="Red"]Should France, Russia and Prussia [/COLOR]h[COLOR="Red"]ave "intervened" int he Revolutionary and/or Civil War[/COLOR], 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.[/QUOTE]

    Books time, Bro.:D

  11. #31
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,644
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4487345]wait, so you don't think other countries were involved in the American Revolution?

    [url]http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090108140124AACpajO[/url]

    Civil War?

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_in_the_American_Civil_War[/url]

    Maybe we will both be doing some reading this summer.....;)[/QUOTE]

    I never said no one was involved.

    I said our Wars were not ended by foreign fiat by massive foreign interests invading, occupying and controling out entire nation. :rolleyes: 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. :rolleyes:

  12. #32
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,218
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4487309]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    Grab your rifle and join the resistance... No one is stopping you.

  13. #33
    All League
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,565
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;4487361]Grab your rifle and join the resistance... No one is stopping you.[/QUOTE]

    He need to join zee French foreign legion to forget.

  14. #34
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4487337] Our own Revolution, and Civil War, helped make us what we are today. Should[B] France[/B], Russia and Prussia have [B]"intervened"[/B] int he [B]Revolutionary[/B] and/or [B]Civil War[/B], 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"?[/QUOTE]

    C'mon Scot this is beyond sloppy.

    While officially neutral, coming off a beating in the 7 Years War France was [U]very[/U] helpful to the US in the Revolution. The decisive Battle of [B]Yorktown[/B], [B]Virginia[/B] 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 [B]Hessians [/B]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 :P)
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-08-2012 at 12:04 PM.

  15. #35
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,644
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;4487381]C'mon man this is beyond sloppy.

    While officially neutral, coming off a beating in the 7 Years War France was [U]very[/U] helpful to the US in the Revolution. The decisive Battle of [B]Yorktown[/B], [B]Virginia[/B] 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 [B]Hessians [/B]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 :P)[/QUOTE]

    Already addressed, and I don't need to google anything, I know the history of both Wars, and foreign involvemnt, just fine.

    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.

  16. #36
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    924
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4487345]
    Maybe we will both be doing some reading this summer.....;)[/QUOTE]

    Not everyone gets the summer off, plus a public pension to boot.:cool:

  17. #37
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,155
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4486931]This is an abomination, an affront to any decent person. [B]Children, infants,[/B] are being slaughtered and the powers around the world do nothing of substance. President Obama, more concerned about reelection and campaigning, is failing to lead.

    This is a political forum so I would like to throw out the following question; after reading this story and watching the video, [B]what can be done?[/B][/QUOTE]

    Nothing.

    Sad truth.

  18. #38
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,155
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4487236]We could encourage the Turks and Saudis to arm the rebels. We could push the Arab League to institute[B] a no fly zone above Syria.[/B] If we had a leader we could work on a number of potential solutions. The brutal Syrian regime is an ally to Iran. A regime change there would be a blow to our enemy. It makes sense to come up with a responsible and international consensus to deal with the slaughter happening there. Without leadership unfortunately the issue will likely have to wait until Obama is replaced in November.[/QUOTE]

    A no fly zone would be useless; Assad isn't relying on air attacks. The only way to stop him would be a ground war.

    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.

  19. #39
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    19,603
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'd be happy if we could get the Kennedys to stop killing women. :(

    Then, on to Syria! tallyho! :rolleyes:

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us