"At the same time if the Saudis and the Israelis and the Turks and the majority of the Sunni Arab states are asking for our intervention do we just ignore that."
Yes. Let them deal with their ed up neighbor if they're so inclined.
Is there a point to deterring proliferation of WMD. No I understand everyone being pissed off about having guesses pushed out at as certainty in Iraq but at a certain point is there merit in doing so.
For example, if a country drops a nuke and did not sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty then should we let it go as a matter of course or are we right to intervene. Should we do nothing to deter the use of chemical weapons.
I get 100% the notion that we cannot be the worlds police force. Certainly not by ourselves. At the same time if the Saudis and the Israelis and the Turks and the majority of the Sunni Arab states are asking for our intervention do we just ignore that.
This is why I have such issue with the tin foil brigade. They deter from substantive discussion on real issues of foreign policy.
"At the same time if the Saudis and the Israelis and the Turks and the majority of the Sunni Arab states are asking for our intervention do we just ignore that."
Yes. Let them deal with their ed up neighbor if they're so inclined.
I would say that your tactic is novel, persuasive, or meaningful in any way but it is not so I won't.
You talk a lot but you don't really say anything. That's the problem with politics in general. I guess you think you can do something to shift policy by having a blog and talking a lot.
No war but class war.
Who is to say "limited air strikes" will deter future use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government?
My problem is those who say "we can't just do nothing" have no good answer for what should be done.
That makes sense.
Can't we just agree that Obama has been a disaster as president and possibly worse than Bush? I know these ers lie when they run for president but Obama should be given an award for his lies. This guy is a clone of Bush. If I had a dollar for every time, I have said that or commented on that, I'd be rich. Wake up stupid America. Obama didn't get re-elected. He is just serving Bush's 4th term.
Kerry runs his mouth and says if Assad turns him all his weapons, US won't bomb
few hours later, Putin calls his bluff and issues press release that Russia will negotiate with Assad for exactly what Kerry asked
how does that shoe taste, Ketchup ?
US polls since Ketchup opened his mouth:
Ketchup might possibly be the most efficient peace proponent since Ghandi![]()
looks like Kerry won.
but what about the insurgents chemical weapons?
Why doesn't Ketchup just resign and just go take a swim in the money bin that his wife probably has underground?
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/...ussians-blink/
He was, apparently, just being hypothetical. The State Department had to walk him back:
“Secretary Kerry was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used,” Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said in an e-mail to reporters after Mr. Kerry’s comments. “His point was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons, otherwise he would have done so long ago. That’s why the world faces this moment.”
Sometimes, it seems, Kerry’s incompetence strikes gold. Here’s hoping.![]()
There are reports rebels will attack Israel with the chems if US decides not to bombbut what about the insurgents chemical weapons?
wait a minute...
We are getting way ahead of Booutox. The Syrian government is not involved in gassing anyone.
Go to his fruitbat sites and read.
Lets see them...
Putin also proposes to negotiate on terms to have the American diplomat hand over all the chemicals he uses on his face
dude looks like the Muppet's newscaster![]()
![]()
![]()
So far so good.
Interesting that Norway demurred.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)