Moment of Truth In The Middle East.

If only Syria had significant oil reserves, you might see it differently. Alas, only people suffering horrific deaths from chemical weapons.

 

I'm trying to figure out how nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers are supposed to be used. Here I thought they were instruments specifically designed to project power abroad.

Sea lion rest stations?

 

[penis] Chaney would be on TV talking about the "moral imperative" of action if Syria had meaningful oil reserves.

 

Fair point - I was just pointing out the irony of those who dropped a nuke decrying the use of NCB's.

So, the US' own morality and ideals make it ok? And those are best delivered on the tip of a Tomahawk? Check.

[/Quote]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.[/quote]

So, anything bad that happens - or could happen - might affect us, so we ask. Zimmerman will be elated at this line of thought.

Oh - it's right because white people who like women and Protestantism. Got it.

 

A landing pad for W to hit and pronounce missions accomplished about a decade ahead of any meaningful troop withdrawal.

 

It usually goes:

International condemnation->Yes or No?

If Yes->Can country or population handle problem? If Yes: Leave to country, provide option to assist. If No: Issue directive of intention to intervene, if issue not resolved, intervene.
If No->Are interests threatened?

If Yes->Issue directive of intention to intervene, if issue not resolved, intervene.
If No->Check Tomorrow

 

Oh, so what you (and many others) believe to be a universally reviled and illegal act can simply go unpunished by the UN, because Putin has a veto on the Security Council.

That's weird - because it almost sounds like you're saying that the UN is just one big paper tiger, and with little actual ability to do anything, no matter how obvious or right?

I wonder what the implications of that line of thought may be, if true?

 

What sort of chemical weapon was Martin using on civilians? Oh, you were just making sweet "current events" analogy. Way better than a cliche WW2 one. See if you can work in a Myley Cyrus twerking reference next time.

 

Yeah, me think Bush was dum-dum, too.

Bomb'em.

 

Your original analogy, at least the way it came across in response to a quoted post, seemed to imply that we went to war with Italy and Germany because of an issue of morality. I'm simply saying that's not the case, but I'm certain you already know that.

 

I don't recall mentioning party politics.

Nor did I use politics to condone many of W's rather glaring mistakes.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I get the feeling that you already suspected the UN to be some sort of elaborate origami version of a functioning international governing body.

 

Skittles.

 

The atom bomb was between two countries in a state of war and may well have saved a lot of lives on both sides. Not really a fair comparison.

 

Might makes right.

Check.

 

Oh, so we should intervene on more than just NCB's.

What else?

 

The implication is the same as it has always been. The big boys give lip service to UN approval, but lack thereof is no deterrent to action.

 

What I'm reading this as: "Party positions and affiliations are coincidence, hindsight-guided revision is sweet, and chicks dig scars."

 

You can't avoid your own silliness, even when we should be in agreement.

 

I don't think anyone loses any sleep if we intervene on genocide. Civil wars? A totally different matter.