Published Authors

A place for budding and experienced authors to share ideas about publishing and marketing books
 
HomeHome  GalleryGallery  FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister  Log in  Featured MembersFeatured Members  ArticlesArticles  

Share | 
 

 Syria

Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
slb
Four Star Member
Four Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 908
Registration date : 2010-11-04
Age : 52
Location : Oskaloosa, Iowa

PostSubject: Syria   Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:20 pm

In 1991, when the US entered Gulf War 1, we knew Saddam had used chemical weapons. Yet the liberals and the media lied about Saddam and tried to portray him as not really a bad guy. They were against Bush going to war in the first place.


After 9/11 when we invaded Afghanistan and a year later, Iraq, the liberals reluctantly (for awhile) agreed to the former and were totally against the latter. Up until Criminal Obama was elected the media gave us weekly if not daily death tolls, the liberals protested that the US shouldn't be the world's sheriff, outcries against the military not having the best equipment on hand, and demands that Bush give us all details and an exit strategy. As soon as Obama was in office, all of that disappeared.


Will any of the above be heard from the media or the liberals if the US decides to take action against Syria? Will there be protests against the military? Will there be demands for Obama to provide all the details? Will there be outcries that Syria did not directly attack the US (remember this was said about Iraq?) and that we shouldn't be the world's sheriff?


As I understand, no faction in Syria is worth backing, that they're all terrorists.


I listened to bits of Kerry's speech on Monday and while his words were powerful, I heard a double standard. He spoke of the Syrian government covering up the truth, hiding the evidence, that it was a moral outrage what they had done and that they should come clean.

Where was this attitude last year when US citizens were directly attacked and murdered in Benghazi? Where was the outcry from the liberals about the government lying, and hiding and covering up the truth? As soon as Kerry took office he shoved the entire tragedy into the closed file.


So why Syria? Why now? Can't we take the liberal view of we shouldn't be the world's sheriff? Can't we take the Criminal Clinton line of What difference does it make?

I agree that the war in Syria is devastating and the use of chemical weapons is a war crime, but will there be as much protest, or yet, any, that there was when a Republican was in office?
Back to top Go down
http://www.stephenbrayton.com
Abe F. March
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 10627
Registration date : 2008-01-26
Age : 79
Location : Germany

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Mon Aug 26, 2013 11:04 pm

Stephen,
I disagree with your analysis.  Your use of the word when describing our past Presidents as “Criminal” is opinionated and false.  The real criminal President, not mentioned and still to be brought to justice, is GWB.   

It is clear that something must be done in Syria.  But, what to do is the dilemma.  Launching missiles, in my view, will kill even more innocent civilians.  Whatever is done, there will be consequences.  The President will take some action after receiving the necessary input from reliable sources.  To be pressed into action by the media or public opinion is not wise.  At the moment, he is gathering support from the international community.  Collectively, they can reach a decision for appropriate action.
Back to top Go down
slb
Four Star Member
Four Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 908
Registration date : 2010-11-04
Age : 52
Location : Oskaloosa, Iowa

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Tue Aug 27, 2013 8:56 am

Abe, I only said Obama is a criminal, which he is. that's not opinion, it's fact. He's broken countless laws and for a supposed Constitutional lawyer, he clearly disobeys the document.

The media/public opinion won't affect his decision. My comments were the liberals' and media's outcries when the first Bush and the second Bush went to war and how they were silent when Obama went into Libya, how they were silent when the attack from Libya happened last year and will they be silent whenever Syria is decided upon. Will the media pick apart the sources he gets information from like they did with Bush?

I agree that Syria needs to be taken down or out. But I'm just taking the side that the liberals had during Afghanistan, Iraq and Gulf War 1 and seeing similarities with the situation in Syria, but not seeing the same reaction from the liberals and the media. The only reason behind this attitude is that Obama is a liberal and has been seen and hyped as a messiah who can do no wrong. If Romney had won and was now facing Syria, the attitude by the liberals and the media would completely different.
Back to top Go down
http://www.stephenbrayton.com
dkchristi
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 8594
Registration date : 2008-12-29
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:42 am

deleted
Back to top Go down
http://www.dkchristi.webs.com
dkchristi
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 8594
Registration date : 2008-12-29
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:45 am

Criminal actions are determined by a court of law.  Name calling does not fix situations but only stirs emotional responses and clouds real issues.
Back to top Go down
http://www.dkchristi.webs.com
slb
Four Star Member
Four Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 908
Registration date : 2010-11-04
Age : 52
Location : Oskaloosa, Iowa

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:58 am

I wish we could put him before a court of law but you're right DK, however I cannot call him President. He has so demeaned and corrupted the noble office and doesn't deserve the title. It is the same a cop who breaks the law. he is no longer a cop at that point.
Back to top Go down
http://www.stephenbrayton.com
Abe F. March
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 10627
Registration date : 2008-01-26
Age : 79
Location : Germany

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:43 pm

Steve, let's agree to disagree.
Back to top Go down
slb
Four Star Member
Four Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 908
Registration date : 2010-11-04
Age : 52
Location : Oskaloosa, Iowa

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Tue Aug 27, 2013 10:03 pm

Sure Abe, but nothing I said was untrue. I was only using the argument that was used against the Bushes and see if it works for Obama. Not surprisingly, I'm not seeing it and I wonder why. Well, I know why, but still...
Back to top Go down
http://www.stephenbrayton.com
Abe F. March
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 10627
Registration date : 2008-01-26
Age : 79
Location : Germany

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:22 am

Although conflict in one area may be or look similar to another, each one is different in some respect.
My feelings about what is happening in Syria are in some way influenced by my experience during the Civil War in Lebanon.  As a civilian, I have a basic understanding of the fear and the hardships occurring.  Trying to sleep with the sound of gunfire or the vibration and sounds of bombs exploding is terrifying.   Trying to comfort small children who awake screaming is not easy for any parent. 
Revenge for the harm to any family member is very real.  When the Israelis bombed the Palestinian camp adjacent to where my daughter was at the riding stables, I was horrified.  I saw the planes with the Star of David markings.  The next day the Lebanese government complained about the invasion of their air space and the bombing.  The Israelis denied it.
At the time, I stated: “If they have harmed my daughter, I will join the PLO and fight them.”
Politics are not a consideration in situations like this.  The enemy is the one who inflicted harm.  When civilians are killed during a conflict, it is called “collateral damage” as though it should be excused.  That excuse is unacceptable to the relatives of those who were killed.  They may not be able to retaliate immediately, but in some cases, it is a life-long goal to inflict revenge on the perpetrators.  In the M.E., it is a religious thing and the duty of the family to take revenge. 
George Bush has escaped revenge for what he did in Iraq, but I’m of the opinion that someone may still try to get him.  He is heavily guarded and his travels are restricted for security reasons.  Forgiveness would be possible if one would admit a wrong-doing and apologize for it.  Without that, he will continue to be a marked man until the day he dies.  The international community wanted to bring him up on charges for crimes against humanity, but the US does not recognize the International Court of Justice when it affects an American Citizen, but support it when it involves citizens of other countries.  And we stand for liberty and justice for all.
Back to top Go down
dkchristi
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 8594
Registration date : 2008-12-29
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:26 am

Thanks, Abe, for expressing the unexpressable.  I lived in S. Korea in 1975 when they were still under military curfew and young men with large guns made sure the streets were empty by midnight so they could catch N. Koreans they believed were tunneling through the DMZ to cause harm in S. Korea.

I was on my way to a party one night with my driver and stopped to pick up my escort at a new Japanese skyscraper hotel.  All of a sudden the sky lit up and it was like Chinese fireworks only people were running for cover.  My driver had me duck down in the car that was pulled under a cupola in waiting for my friend.  The flashes, sounds and running came to an end, and finally my friend joined us.  He had been under the bed in his hotel room high in the sky where he saw the strafing in the air. I was too inexperienced to understand what was happening, to be afraid.

What happened was that a KAL cargo plane had come too close to the government house air space and they attempted to shoot it down - missing - either on purpose or out of aim (anything was possible) - but the shrapnel came down on people in the streets who did not run fast enough.  The initial thought was that Seoul was under attack.  The terror was universal, even my friend who had been in combat in Viet Nam returned to his memories under that bed.

My experience in the Middle East, stranded in a Baghdad airport without visas was also terrifying because my six year old was with us and for a while we felt in danger of being incarcerated or living our lives in the airport.  It was a nightmare; and no sympathy for our child was present in any official to whom my spouse carried his useless complaints.  I think our embassy was closed for a holiday.

These are small experiences compared to Abe's or to anyone who lived and/or fought in combat zones.  War is truly the hell that realists describe and loss of life is not "collateral damage" to loved ones and friends and revenge and hate are natural responses.

I remember once a man in a truck rear-ended me while I was at a stop sign in the days before children sat in belts in the back seat.  My two-year old was thrown on the floor.  I remember the feeling that I would kill the driver if my son was harmed.  It was only a fleeting feeling - but I remember it as it is so foreign to my nature. It was a clear and unemotional certainty in that second - that disappeared as I gathered up my child, found him okay and accepted the care and concern and apologies of the truck driver.

Unfortunately, former President Bush was a dangerous man.  His presidency probably took this country to a place from which it may never find its way back, economically or as a world leader or with the stature it could have attained.  President of the United States is an impossible job with too many demands and no control of the people that should be promoting the best interests of all the citizens.  What President of a global corporation cannot fire those who determine the health of the company?  What President of a global corporation is held hostage by the budget department because it is dependent on a bunch of ego-maniacs preserving their jobs? I mean Congress.

There is no good decision regarding Syria; President Obama has been damned for every breath he takes, this is the biggest gulp yet.
Back to top Go down
http://www.dkchristi.webs.com
slb
Four Star Member
Four Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 908
Registration date : 2010-11-04
Age : 52
Location : Oskaloosa, Iowa

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:10 pm

I do understand the sentiments and the fears. However, there has never been a war where innocents weren't killed. That's part of war. Yes, it's tragic, yes, it's devastating, but that's part of war. You're not going to have a war where the combatants only are going to fight. But the mind set of today's liberal thinking of 'let's be careful to not hurt the populace' would have lost us WWI and II.

As for Bush not getting avenged for his attack on Iraq, I urge you to research the history of Saddam and how he grew up, the beliefs he was taught, the hatred and torture and murder of innocents he committed. The pure evil of this man. He formed his beliefs from a teacher who took HIS credo right from the Nazi playbook. Do the research and then tell me that going after him was wrong. If you are going to give Saddam a pass, saying we never should have gone in there, then what's happening in Syria is a drop in the bucket and shouldn't even be considered.

I forgot to mention a few more points in my original post. I remember also the arguments about proof against Saddam. However, I'm not hearing the clamor about getting the evidence before we take action from anybody other than Russia. Kerry is out there stating that because the Syrian government bombed the site of the chemical attacks, they must be hiding something. I agree, but where the protests against getting evidence. I will say I did hear where the inspectors are still there. The second argument I heard during the Gulf Wars was that Congress didn't give approval for the President to act. I've only heard one question about approval put to Carney who couldn't answer a question about his own name without falling all over himself. If Bush needed approval, then so does Obama and if he doesn't then the same protest should be heard. A third argument I heard back then was that we shouldn't attack because that will only make the terrorists mad at us and make them attack more. Haven't heard that argument here. Oh, and one more argument I heard back then I haven't heard from the liberals is why are we worried about Syria and not worried about Darfur or Ethiopia or Burma (or whatever the hell it's called today)?

You're right DK that Obama has been slammed for a lot. Deservedly so. Without wanting to get off the Syria track, he's done a lot of the same things for which Bush was slammed but the difference is, Obama was given a pass by the liberals and especially the media.

I think the interesting thing about this will be to see what Obama, with all of his past statements about Bush's wars, his cutting of the military budget, his apologizing for America's invasive nature and 'terrible' culture, his lack of leadership when it comes to terrorism (despite his decision and taking credit for taking out Bin Laden for which Bush started the campaign to do), will do when it comes to this situation. We know he didn't do anything, and in fact lied continuously, over a real attack against Americans in Benghazi. And what should have pissed you two off with your personal stories of the fear of innocents being killed was Obama calling the Benghazi deaths bumps in the road, and Biden's insult to one of the parents. These two plus Hillary and others had and still have a total disregard for those American deaths but Kerry gets all fired up about Syrians.

If we are going to do something over there, then the action better be decisive and solve the problem. Otherwise, what's the point? Lobbing a few missiles, which is what I've been hearing is the most popular action, isn't going to solve the problem.
Back to top Go down
http://www.stephenbrayton.com
Abe F. March
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 10627
Registration date : 2008-01-26
Age : 79
Location : Germany

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:19 pm

Stephen,
Your comments express the truth that there is no clear solution and that whatever action is taken, there will be repercussions. It does appear that for many, the answer to problems is to start bombing.  It rarely solves anything.  You also made reference to WWII.  The US and the UK wanted to break the will of the people in Germany and one of those acts was to bomb heavily populated cities, like Dresden.  Hundreds of thousands of people died.  Dresden was not a military target.  Instead of breaking the will of the people, it strengthened it.  Those who were opposed to Hitler's leadership began to support him. 
As for Saddam Hussein, that is another story.   If you want a good and clear picture of what happened in the aftermath of Iraq’s invasion, read:  “Night Draws Near: Iraq’s People in the Shadow of America’s War” by Anthony Shadid.  He was a news correspondent.  Shortly after he wrote the book, he died.  He took a great risk in writing what he did.
 
What do you think our reaction would be if Russia used chemical weapons on its population? 
 
The world is saying, “Something must be done”.   Sometimes doing nothing is doing something.  Killing is not the answer.  I don’t know what an appropriate response would be.  I can only guess based on history and past experience.
Back to top Go down
slb
Four Star Member
Four Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 908
Registration date : 2010-11-04
Age : 52
Location : Oskaloosa, Iowa

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:06 am

Didn't Russia use chemical weapons against it's own? In Chechnya or Georgia? Or am I am incorrect in the incident I'm thinking of? Or maybe some terrorists used some in Russia? Either that or I'm remembering a book I read. lol.

I have a feeling, though, we wouldn't do anything except do what we've done in the past to somebody who does something wrong which is verbally condemn the action and shake our finger at them and say, "Don't do that again or we'll get mad. Then we'll get really mad. Then we'll get REALLY mad. Then we'll have to say the 's' word which will prove our seriousness. Then we'll have to consider sanctions just to show we're serious..." and so on and so on. That's been a typical response. Doesn't solve the problem.

Of course killing shouldn't be the first response unless it's the only response. But if something decisive isn't done in these instances, then nothing is solved. I can't adequately discuss, without some research, a lot of military decisions before I was born but I can comment on a few instances when I was growing up. When the terrorists took the hostages in Iran, despite the failed attempt at rescue, Carter did nothing and the situation lasted until the terrorists saw that Reagan was going to be president and was going to take action. Then they negotiated. During Clinton's time in office, he was focused on screwing interns and making a mockery out of his marriage and the office to worry about the over 80 attacks by terrorists on US citizens, officials, and military. I think if he would have had the guts to stand up and do something then maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened. But he let the terrorists go on their merry killing way and they became bolder and bolder. But at the time, and still today, the liberal view has been to 'understand the terrorists'. Don't judge them, don't retaliate, let's talk things over.

Sometimes killing is the answer so that the bad guys don't keep doing what they're doing. You can take that from a world view all the way down to a personal situation and the constant gun control talk. You said it yourself that you would have joined a known terrorist organization to fight against the other side who had been bombing residents. In that case, is killing the answer? It becomes a more personal situation at that point. Same with this silly talk about gun control and I don't want veer away from the original post, but when it comes down to a one on one situation between you and the bad guy threatening you or your family, is 'understanding the bad guy' or talking things out with him going to work better or a bullet to the brain? So take that back to the world view. Should we have tried to 'understand' Hitler's point of view and tried to talk to him, negotiate with him? Is talking to Syria and saying "Naughty naughty, don't do that again." going to work?

I don't want to sound like a warhawk shooting from the hip every time some self important dictator decides to wave a stick at me, but I'll bet you that there would fewer mouthing off if we sent in a small strike team to take them out whenever they did. If we would smack down a few more idiots like the twerp in North Korea then maybe we could focus on some other issues.

Yes, when it comes to Russia or China then that is a different scenario because they're big enough to give us a challenge. But podunk places like Syria? It's like going against something the size of North Dakota.
Back to top Go down
http://www.stephenbrayton.com
dkchristi
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 8594
Registration date : 2008-12-29
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:24 am

Podunk places like Syria have allies; just a reminder.
Back to top Go down
http://www.dkchristi.webs.com
dkchristi
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 8594
Registration date : 2008-12-29
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:29 am

I do believe the U.S. is not the world's policeman however, except that those in charge (not the President, the corporate giants) want to protect their profits.  Note how the price of oil is escalating as talk of war escalates.  Someone is getting filthy rich today, or should I say "richer."

Wag the Dog, a movie in 1997, as an eye-opener I'll never forget.
Back to top Go down
http://www.dkchristi.webs.com
Abe F. March
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 10627
Registration date : 2008-01-26
Age : 79
Location : Germany

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:35 am

Here's one person's slant on the M.E.  Enjoy.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/the-middle-east-explained-in-one-excellent-letter-to-the-edi
Back to top Go down
dkchristi
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 8594
Registration date : 2008-12-29
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:11 pm

That is a great read!  Now I don't feel so ignorant because it makes so little sense.  Thank you.
Back to top Go down
http://www.dkchristi.webs.com
Abe F. March
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 10627
Registration date : 2008-01-26
Age : 79
Location : Germany

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:52 am

Has it occurred to anyone that the countries that are set on attacking Syria because they have allegedly used chemical weapons are the countries that have them?  The same goes for WMD’s.  Those who have WMD’s don’t want anyone else to have them. 
If chemical weapons should not be used, they why have them? 
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cbwprolif


Last edited by Abe F. March on Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
dkchristi
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 8594
Registration date : 2008-12-29
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Fri Aug 30, 2013 6:46 am

It's always been a puzzle to me how we can demand of other countries that they have less weaponry than we have - that's asking them to risk domination.  As countries gain power, they don't want to be less than the U.S.

When all countries recognize the futility and cost of war and attempt some sort of universal cooperation so that weapons that may destroy the world are no longer in the arsenal of any power, then we can talk fairness and peace.
Back to top Go down
http://www.dkchristi.webs.com
slb
Four Star Member
Four Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 908
Registration date : 2010-11-04
Age : 52
Location : Oskaloosa, Iowa

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:20 am

I would have thought the answer would have been obvious. Because if the bad guys have the weapons, they will use them, i.e. what we just saw in Syria. This is like any new development, you can't put the genie back into the bottle.

Why do you think the US and Israel doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons? Because Iran hates Israel and won't hesitate to use the weapons and has said as much. Saddam gassed some of his own people.

Russia was the bad guy fifty, sixty years ago but they were smart enough to realize that if they used nukes, we would use them back. Iran and these other Middle East countries aren't smart enough and don't care.

The editorial was interesting but all it shows is that there are extreme factions within the same religion that don't like each other which we already knew. It'd be like if there were radical factions of different denominations of Christianity that had a hatred for each other.

See part of the problem is that the liberals with the help of the media have been trying to present the view that America is bad, that America is an overlord over the rest of the world. But the double standard is, that when the Bush's were in office and we went to war, there were all these protests to keep us out of war. But when we were directly attacked last year in Benghazi, there's no response from this government and outright lies from this administration. Now with Syria, the liberals are now saying we have to do something. Why? Where are the peace protests and for us just to stay out of the way? That was the point of the original post, that because Obama is now in charge, it's okay to talk retaliation and all those points I mentioned somehow get ignored.
Back to top Go down
http://www.stephenbrayton.com
Abe F. March
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 10627
Registration date : 2008-01-26
Age : 79
Location : Germany

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:43 am

I am opposed to intervention in Syria by military means.  The UK just nixed involvement when it was presented to their Parliment.  Our involvement should be presented to our Congress and options discussed.  

As for Iran, that's another story.  Iran wants nuclear capability because Israel has it.  We know that Israel won't hesitate to use it.  All nuclear weapons and should be eliminated.  Having it as a defense and a threat means that some nut, sometime will use it.  And when one does, the others will join in and we are all lost. 

We can't even get our governments to pay attention to the environment.  We already see the signs.  They will try to act when it's too late.   Trying to dismantel nuclear weapons after they have been launched is similar.  Chemical weapons are no worse than any other bombs.  Dead is dead.  Do we give anyone a choice on the method of their death? 

I'm against war. Period.
Back to top Go down
Abe F. March
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 10627
Registration date : 2008-01-26
Age : 79
Location : Germany

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:24 am

Just saw a video clip of a Syrian Rebel, having killed a Syrian soldier, cuts open his chest takes out his heart and liver and eats it.
I was encouraged to pass the clip along, but won’t.  Even Putin, saw the video and said: “And these are the people you want to support?”
 
I’m reminded of the lyrics to a song that you’ll recognize:  “You got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away, know when to run….”
Back to top Go down
dkchristi
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 8594
Registration date : 2008-12-29
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:48 am

It's really scarey.  As a friend and I discussed this morning, it's a time warp.  We are trying to apply a Western thought process that has evolved over centuries to countries who are still in the mind set of centuries long past. 

It is like a science fiction movie where people from modern times go back in history and it's dangerous to provide the past with information from the future.  They are fighting an ancient war and mind set with modern weaponry.  Their beliefs and quarrels are in the times of swords and slingshots yet they have aspirations inspired by the modern world.  No wonder it's a constant powder keg. 

The leaders and intelligentsia of those countries know how to manipulate the emotions of people living in a different era mind set to their personal advantage, and their personal advantage may be a radical religious perspective.

We see "good and evil" where there is none.  They are operating as strongly from their religious and inherited belief system as we are.  The communication gap between our throught process and theirs is immense and not yet ready to bridge. 

Our own Civil War was heinous.  They are operating in a mind set from centuries before our birth as a nation.  The carnage in our own country during the revolutionary war and the civil war certainly would have sickened the developed world if communications were the same as today. 

The Indian Wars were heinous. 

I hope those countries that have room for refugees will take them in; when their own horrid war comes to some conclusion, the western world will have to deal with the result.  Those who understand those centuries of mind set need to step in if they can and try to end the carnage.  We are not intellectually in their same arena.

I love my United States as the greatest hope for a global world of cooperation and quality of life for all.  I have lived throughout the world and always want to come home no matter how much I find reasons to love where I am.  This is the land of my birth, my hopes, my dreams and my opportunities.  I found my life as a woman in a male-dominated society one of greater challenge and less support for my future but lacking any other reason for bias against me, I did okay in this beautiful country.  I believe in our ideals and our ability to change course without resorting to wars.
Back to top Go down
http://www.dkchristi.webs.com
alj
Five Star Member
Five Star Member
avatar

Number of posts : 9633
Registration date : 2008-12-05
Age : 75
Location : San Antonio

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:59 am

Seems to me that this whole concept of "good guy/bad guy" only contributes to the problem.  Who is good and who is bad nearly always depends on one's perspective.  In the American West a century or so ago, White settlers thought the "Indians" were the bad guys.  Today we can see those times from a broader point of view.

I remember how the media, during the Vietnam Era, continually bombarded us with pictures of dead Viet Cong.  One might have assumed that there were no American casualties.  We saw the very young men who were sent there as murderers, and condemned them when they returned home, even though they were only following orders, and many of them died doing so.

I was opposed to that war.  I was appalled at the treatment of the returning vets.  I was neutral during the first Gulf War.  I am neutral now in regard to Syria.  I do believe, still, that there are times when aggression needs to be checked in order to prevent its spread.  Decisions as to when to take action are very difficult ones to make.  None of us here are in possession of all of the intelligence needed to make such a decision.

[DK, we seem to be on the same wave-length. We have been writing our posts at the same time.  Talk about synchronicity!]
Back to top Go down
http://www.annjoiner.com
Shelagh
Admin
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 12527
Registration date : 2008-01-11
Location : UK

PostSubject: Re: Syria   Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:16 pm

Abe F. March wrote:
Has it occurred to anyone that the countries that are set on attacking Syria because they have allegedly used chemical weapons are the countries that have them?  The same goes for WPM’s.  Those who have WPM’s don’t want anyone else to have them. 
If chemical weapons should not be used, they why have them? 
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cbwprolif
WMD are kept by countries to fight their enemies, not to use against their own people.

_________________

Amazon Author Central: Shelagh Watkins
I shall never be old. It doesn't suit me -- ©Shelagh Watkins 2017
Back to top Go down
http://shelaghwatkins.co.uk
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Syria   

Back to top Go down
 
Syria
Back to top 
Page 1 of 4Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Published Authors :: Society :: All Political Discussions-
Jump to: