Moment of Truth In The Middle East.

I fail to see how the Beirut bombings either,

A) Resuscitate your (fatally) flawed Japan / Germany / Italian analogy, or
B) It lends any credence to your stance on the US' need to bomb Syria, now.

 

Tenny D, is it not a straw man to say the argument is that we "need" to bomb Syria? Isn't the actual position more similar to "Bombing Syria is the right thing to do?"

 

A) I answered that earlier.
B) Justice delayed is still justice.

 

At the time it wasn't an international agreement. At the time, it was, at best, strongly discouraged and up for debate. This is akin to charging someone for possession of a substance before it was banned. Retroactively, even.

By our own definitions of morality, which is a societal concept, which features heavily in the ideals behind "nation" and what constitutes proper and good action by such.

We live in a global, intertwined and connected lifetime. As such, the concept of protecting American interests currently includes protecting American interests as it pertains to remaining within and keeping support of and for this international stewardship. Because if we do not, nobody else will... or worse, someone else will, and we'll move on down to hind teat.

And yes, it is definitely the best policy to wait until the citizenry agree up on something, because that has worked out well for... well everyone not white, straight and protestant. Oh, wait.

 

What's wrong with joining the Arab League in condemning them?

You have a means to deal with BOTH the current situation AND Putin's puppeteering in the region.

Just take it to the UN Security Council.

 

Again, I'm not trying to defend inaction. I'm simply agree with tenny d that the Hitler/Mussolini analogy isn't really valid. Maybe he's an equally cruel dictator, but the hostilities between the countries isn't remotely comparable.

 

Where Putin holds a veto. That's akin to asking the Gambino family to vote on the passage of new RICO statutes.

 

You're just speaking gibberish now.

 

Agreed

 

So, because we're now a nation of knownothing halfwits, we wait til a plane hits a skyscraper to figure who the bad guys are? That'll end well.

 

I thought that a nuclear bomb was worse than NCB's.

And I don't recall making the assertion that the use of NCB's is not in violation of international laws (in fact, I've admitted just the opposite is most likely).

I'll even play along (for now) and agree that it is against international law.

How does that make it the US' problem, again?

 

Yeah, I bet those are the WMDs from Iraq Assad is using now. He was able to get them past the UN and all those crack analysts Bush sent over there to avenge his precious daddy's non-assassination. I may have underestimated Ol' Bashar.

 

Does it mention that it is the US' responsibility to enforce it, alone, or even at all?

Please cite it, once found.

 

I guess much in the same way Kuwait's borders became our problem.

 

I find the sheriff with the biggest gun is usually the one left to enforce the law.

 

So, we are the policemen / moral voice / beacon of goodness in the world....but only when it comes to the worst of international offenses?

Other than NCB's, what else do we bomb for? Is there some sort of international scenarios to bombardment flow matrix I could reference?

 

Respectfully, were you not a navy man? What did you think all of those warships were doing criss-crossing the globe rather than just patrolling on the edge of international waters?

 

I don't think its defensible, either way.

But I appreciate your point.

 

I'd say Slobodan Milosevic could give you some examples.

 

Waiting for us to reach a consensus with the Russians.