[QUOTE=yawmwen;41944346]it's a bit hypocritical to take a stance against terrorism and then fund terrorism at the same time.[/QUOTE]
So you say we should tolerate this attack because of what ever you believe right now?
I'm really failing to see the logical connection you're trying to make.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41944353]So you say we should tolerate this attack because of what ever you believe right now?
I'm really failing to see the logical connection you're trying to make.[/QUOTE]
i'm saying that we have no moral authority to say the usage of chemical weapons is wrong when we target civilians and fund groups that target civilians. it shows our interest in syria is purely political and the usage of chemical weapons happens to be a convenient excuse for us to get involved.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41944353]So you say we should tolerate this attack because of what ever you believe right now?
I'm really failing to see the logical connection you're trying to make.[/QUOTE]
Why did the west tolerate Iraq's chemical attacks against Iran?
[QUOTE=laserguided;41944352]I wouldn't want to play into somebody elses dumb comment either, right?[/QUOTE]
If it was truly a dumb comment I would think you would state why it was dumb instead of blowing it off. You took the time to post a reply anyway.
[editline]23rd August 2013[/editline]
It wasn't even a dumb comment it was a question about something you posted
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41944373]i'm saying that we have no moral authority to say the usage of chemical weapons is wrong when we target civilians and fund groups that target civilians. it shows our interest in syria is purely political and the usage of chemical weapons happens to be a convenient excuse for us to get involved.[/QUOTE]
You're kidding right.
The world is anything but eager to get involved in Syria. Its been trying to avoid getting involved for years.
No one is waiting for a convenient excuse, I'd be amazed to hear why you think otherwise.
And yes, I think its safe to say that the usage of chemical weapons is morally wrong lmao
[editline]23rd August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=laserguided;41944384]Why did the west tolerate Iraq's chemical attacks against Iran?[/QUOTE]
did you think it was a good idea to tolerate it?
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41944416]You're kidding right.
The world is anything but eager to get involved in Syria. Its been trying to avoid getting involved for years.
No one is waiting for a convenient excuse, I'd be amazed to hear why you think otherwise.
And yes, I think its safe to say that the usage of chemical weapons is morally wrong lmao
[editline]23rd August 2013[/editline]
did you think it was a good idea to tolerate it?[/QUOTE]
Why do you ask me for answers when you don't even answer my questions.
[QUOTE=laserguided;41944438]no[/QUOTE]
but you think its a good idea to tolerate it this time around?
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41944416]You're kidding right.
The world is anything but eager to get involved in Syria. Its been trying to avoid getting involved for years.
No one is waiting for a convenient excuse, I'd be amazed to hear why you think otherwise.
And yes, I think its safe to say that the usage of chemical weapons is morally wrong lmao
[editline]23rd August 2013[/editline]
did you think it was a good idea to tolerate it?[/QUOTE]
they are obviously eager to get involved considering they have been talking about intervening in the conflict.
if they weren't eager to get involved they wouldn't suggest intervention.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41944442]but you think its a good idea to tolerate it this time around?[/QUOTE]
Can you try to answer the question I presented.
[editline]23rd August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;41944385]If it was truly a dumb comment I would think you would state why it was dumb instead of blowing it off. You took the time to post a reply anyway.
[editline]23rd August 2013[/editline]
It wasn't even a dumb comment it was a question about something you posted[/QUOTE]
Because I don't see it as worth it. It's Sensnationalist Headlines.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41944446]they are obviously eager to get involved considering they have been talking about intervening in the conflict.
if they weren't eager to get involved they wouldn't suggest intervention.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you've realised how thick obamas ~red line~ has grown over this conflict.
They are not eager lmao
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23812944[/url]
[editline]23rd August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=laserguided;41944451]Can you try to answer the question I presented.[/QUOTE]
The day you stop phantom editing your posts to change what you're saying retrospectively.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41944470]I don't think you've realised how thick obamas ~red line~ has grown over this conflict.
They are not eager lmao[/QUOTE]
then why is obama paying any attention to the conflict? why has he created a red line in the first place? he could just say "we aren't going to involve ourselves in the syrian civil war" and be done with it.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41944494]then why is obama paying any attention to the conflict? why has he created a red line in the first place? he could just say "we aren't going to involve ourselves in the syrian civil war" and be done with it.[/QUOTE]
Because being a predominant member of the UN means you take an interest in global events.
Especially ones that have wider implications, including ones that affect you.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41944494]then why is obama paying any attention to the conflict? why has he created a red line in the first place? he could just say "we aren't going to involve ourselves in the syrian civil war" and be done with it.[/QUOTE]
Because the U.S. is world police.
[QUOTE=laserguided;41944451]
Because I don't see it as worth it. It's Sensnationalist Headlines.[/QUOTE]
Your still here just as everyone else. Your still replying to me about this too, so apparently it matters a little. Claiming you just don't care is always a good strategy when you make a statement you can't back up.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;41944554]Your still here just as everyone else. Your still replying to me about this too, so apparently it matters a little. Claiming you just don't care is always a good strategy when you make a statement you can't back up.[/QUOTE]
What statement do you want me to back up, he is avoiding my questions just as much.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41944507]Because being a predominant member of the UN means you take an interest in global events.
Especially ones that have wider implications, including ones that affect you.[/QUOTE]
maybe someone should tell obama about burma?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41944619]maybe someone should tell obama about burma?[/QUOTE]
Yeah Burma makes no sense when it comes to U.S. policy.
[QUOTE=laserguided;41944578]What statement do you want me to back up, he is avoiding my questions just as much.[/QUOTE]
He asked you to explain why taking religion out of the conflict would cause peace, to which you responded, " I didn't know I was obligated to answer your questions". Good gravy it's like a middle school debate class. He hasn't alright refused to answer your question on the premise he isn't obligated too
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;41944658]He asked you to explain why taking religion out of the conflict would cause peace, to which you responded, " I didn't know I was obligated to answer your questions". Good gravy it's like a middle school debate class. He hasn't alright refused to answer your question on the premise he isn't obligated too[/QUOTE]
Taking religion out of the conflict would make it easier because it would eliminate the foriegn jihadi on the rebel and government side, it would also give less reason to those countries supporting either side on religious grounds. Because religion wouldn't exist. In fact, religion is the worlds enemy imo.
Haven't the death tolls been reduced significantly? It was "1300!" and now I am seeing "around 130" and the like.
[QUOTE=Aman;41944927]Haven't the death tolls been reduced significantly? It was "1300!" and now I am seeing "around 130" and the like.[/QUOTE]
Its always been 'hundred(s)' for me.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
