Moment of Truth In The Middle East.

1. What's this past tense shit?
2. As the commercials will attest, those ships are clearly "global forces for good". Its almost impossible to do good while dropping bombs.

 

But let's be honest here. A minority of citizens and leadership knew war was virtually inevitable, and who are enemies were. A majority of isolationists wanted no part in dealing with what was obviously a threat to the US until our hand was forced. That delay cost many, many lives- both American and otherwise.

 

A bomb dropped on Bashar Assad's head would do almost immeasurable good.

 

Don't forget the German and Italian descendents openly rooting for the other side, til the Japanese changed the dynamic.

 

Hard to take a chastisement about silliness to heart from a guy who doesn't post what he means. If you want to pretend like the UN being impotent is a revelation to you, I'm going to have fun too.

 

I was merely showing the stupidity of the "I should take it upon myself to act upon what I believe to truly be a possible risk to me" angle.

 

I find no irony in the idea that two wrongs don't make a right. Call it "USA Guilt," or call it protection of assets. But turning a blind eye is wrong, for whatever reason.

Whether right or wrong changes not necessity of action. And action results from inaction after a plea. If this were the first issue of non-compliance to international condemnation, I would be against. This isn't first strike to a nation that has been a beacon of international cooperation. This is response to a nation that has moved outside control and normal procedure. If you have a rabid dog, you don't work on house training it. You put it down. In the end, it is better for both you and the dog.

Zimmerman faced the equal treatment of the law for those who are, at least, accused of a crime. There is no equal concept of imposing such a trial on Syria. Syria also doesn't have the luxury of claiming they "didn't understand the law," or even "were working within the current law." It is common knowledge that you don't do what Syria did. Intervention by the US is analogous to making an arrest. If Syria wants to produce those responsible, we can have a trial. But when we go to serve the warrant, if they engage us, then we take measures to protect the theory, at least, of justice.

No you don't. It isn't wrong, simply because it isn't the prevailing opinion, was the point. Ie: looking to what is the prevailing opinion of the citizenry is not always the correct course of action.

 

I'd be interested to compare the results of any straw polls on the matter - taken between survivors of either Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

 

I meant absolutely no offense, re: tense.

But hold the effing phone here. What sort of "global forces for good" are we talking about, here? Are those F-18's loaded down with boxes of mac and cheese and Fiji water? If one can't do good by dropping bombs, what sort of good are those warships going around "forcing?"

 

So, UN approval is not required?

 

Dammit.

 

I can understand that. Hitler was never going to stop conquering Europeans. I'm just saying the approach we are likely to take in Syria is quite different than the one we took with the axis powers. We pretty much waited as long as possible in World War II.

 

You don't think many more people would have died if we invaded Japan in a drawn out war?

 

Or "what do you think Japan would have been like if the northern portion was invaded and annexed by the Soviets?", which would certainly have occurred had the war not ended in short order when it did.

But both the above scenario and the atomic bombings could have been avoided had the US been willing to accept a conditional surrender. We were not, and we were not going to let the Soviets claim any major part of victory in the Pacific, nor let them have any of that territory as we knew they would make it communist and never release it.

 

Unconditional surrender was certainly the right move with regards to all the axis powers. Pretty much the definition of seeing the job through.

 

We don't know.

I can tell you that the number of victims from Fat Man / Little Boy is easily known.

 

I'm not so certain. In the end, we still gave the Japanese the condition they were wanting: leaving the emperor alone and in place.

 

Agreed and I still don't think the dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki was necessary, either.

 

If we do have to go in and seek action, what is our out?

I have the feeling that we have no real game plan on this just like Iraq. Because after we take a bite of it, its our shit sandwich to chew.

 

I'm with TD on this one.

There is no country with balls anymore, so everyone expects the US to start the shit, and then others to fall in line behind. Then when things aren't going their way, they tuck tail and run, and we are alone once again in a fight with someone that didn't want our help. Shit has been going down for a LONG time over there, and the mighty US isn't going to change that any time soon.

I have a better option, how bout the people over there in that part of the world who can, handle this and we stay out of it? We already have enough of an entitlement society over here, now we are becoming the proverbial over protective and over generous parent of the world, and the kids we try to protect didn't want our help, nor have taken a stance within themselves to grow the hell up and actually make something of themselves. Instead they prefer internal corruption and fighting, all to which we will never change.

The definition of insanity fits in this instance, especially given our recent presence in the area.