I'm sooooo confused

[Boltlady]

As I understand it, our prez is insisting that Assad gassed over 1400 of his people (the same day that the UN inspectors arrived to inspect things). This means that Assad has to be PUNISHED and taught a lesson.

To do this, we are holding the Sword of Damocles over the heads of his entire population to thoroughly terrorize them because they're being told that we will then commence to randomly murder a number of them by firing missiles into their midst.

Have I got that about right?

We have some Senators that want us to kill an even larger number of people than what we're trying for now to teach him an even BIGGER LESSON, and have him replaced by people who behead people and eat their livers (or was it hearts?).

Sorry, but this 'logic' is too twisted for me to get my head around.

 

[Zam-Zam]

As I understand it, our prez is insisting that Assad gassed over 1400 of his people (the same day that the UN inspectors arrived to inspect things). This means that Assad has to be PUNISHED and taught a lesson.

To do this, we are holding the Sword of Damocles over the heads of his entire population to thoroughly terrorize them because they're being told that we will then commence to randomly murder a number of them by firing missiles into their midst.

Have I got that about right?

We have some Senators that want us to kill an even larger number of people than what we're trying for now to teach him an even BIGGER LESSON, and have him replaced by people who behead people and eat their livers (or was it hearts?).

Sorry, but this 'logic' is too twisted for me to get my head around.

Ideally, any strike would be a precision strike aimed at military assets designed to limit Assad's ability to launch an offensive against his own people.

Ideally.

Life not being perfect, when the missiles start flying, sometimes there are unintended consequences, as in unintended casualties.

I am no dove. Sometimes you have to punish bullies.

I have no love for Assad. I think he's a thug.

I would, however, like to see some hard evidence that he is the one behind the atrocity in question before we commit to a course of action. A gas attack did indeed take place in Syria, but so far all we have is the government's word that Assad is behind it. For me, that's not good enough, I'd like something a little more concrete.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Ideally, any strike would be a precision strike aimed at military assets designed to limit Assad's ability to launch an offensive against his own people.

Ideally.

Life not being perfect, when the missiles start flying, sometimes there are unintended consequences, as in unintended casualties.

I am no dove. Sometimes you have to punish bullies.

I have no love for Assad. I think he's a thug.

I would, however, like to see some hard evidence that he is the one behind the atrocity in question before we commit to a course of action. A gas attack did indeed take place in Syria, but so far all we have is the government's word that Assad is behind it. For me, that's not good enough, I'd like something a little more concrete.

Would you be satisfied with a signed letter of confession from Assad?

 

[Zam-Zam]

Would you be satisfied with a signed letter of confession from Assad?

Do you have one?

 

[NightSwimmer]

Do you have one?

View attachment 23456

I'm a frayed knot.

Looks like the American public will have to form their opinion in the absence of access to the secret intelligence information that is available to the administration and to Congress.

Quite the dilemma, huh? Perhaps you could write a letter to the President explaining just how important your opinion is and he'll agree to let you sit in on the closed hearings?

 

[Boltlady]

Ideally, any strike would be a precision strike aimed at military assets designed to limit Assad's ability to launch an offensive against his own people.

Ideally.

Life not being perfect, when the missiles start flying, sometimes there are unintended consequences, as in unintended casualties.

I am no dove. Sometimes you have to punish bullies.

I have no love for Assad. I think he's a thug.

I would, however, like to see some hard evidence that he is the one behind the atrocity in question before we commit to a course of action. A gas attack did indeed take place in Syria, but so far all we have is the government's word that Assad is behind it. For me, that's not good enough, I'd like something a little more concrete.

Part of my confusion is this: While I understand that the 'goal' is to take out some military assets, just like our 'goal' with our drone strikes in Pakistan is to take out some 'terrorists' while we're also murdering civilians, but after two years of being told that Assad has been killing his own people (which I don't believe btw), how does it 'punish' him to 'help' him by killing a few more?

 

[Zam-Zam]

I'm a frayed knot.

Looks like the American public will have to form their opinion in the absence of access to the secret intelligence information that is available to the administration and to Congress.

Quite the dilemma, huh? Perhaps you could write a letter to the President explaining just how important your opinion is and he'll agree to let you sit in on the closed hearings?

So, let's be clear: Are you in favor of attacking Syria based on what the government tells you?

 

[NightSwimmer]

So, let's be clear: Are you in favor of attacking Syria based on what the government tells you?

Let's be very clear. In any proposed military action, the American people have no choice but to trust their government to make the right decisions. After all, we don't get a vote.

Do you think that we should?

 

[Zam-Zam]

Let's be very clear. In any proposed military action, the American people have no choice but to trust their government to make the right decisions. After all, we don't get a vote.

Do you think that we should?

So, you trusted Bush on Iraq? Is that right?

Are you in favor of attacking Syria based on what you know today?

 

[NightSwimmer]

So, you trusted Bush on Iraq? Is that right?

Thank you for making my point so clearly.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Thank you for making my point so clearly.

If your point is that a child-like faith in government is ill-advised, we are in agreement.

You still haven't answered my question on Syria however. I take that as you're not wanting to be on record.

 

[NightSwimmer]

If your point is that a child-like faith in government is ill-advised, we are in agreement.

You still haven't answered my question on Syria however. I take that as you're not wanting to be on record.

And I take your constant ranting as whining. I understand the need to enforce the international ban on the use of chemical weapons. I prefer not to see the US enforce the ban unilaterally. I have no more knowledge of whether Assad used these weapons than do you, Boltlady, or the folks at infowars.com, and I don't expect the President to call me up and ask for my personal opinion on the matter.

 

[Zam-Zam]

And I take your constant ranting as whining. I understand the need to enforce the international ban on the use of chemical weapons. I prefer not to see the US enforce the ban unilaterally. I have no more knowledge of whether Assad used these weapons than do you, Boltlady, or the folks at infowars.com, and I don't expect the President to call me up and ask for my personal opinion on the matter.

Has anyone here suggested the President call them directly? I must have missed it.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Has anyone here suggested the President call them directly? I must have missed it.

"I would, however, like to see some hard evidence that he is the one behind the atrocity in question before we commit to a course of action. A gas attack did indeed take place in Syria, but so far all we have is the government's word that Assad is behind it. For me, that's not good enough, I'd like something a little more concrete."

 

[Figjam]

As I understand it, our prez is insisting that Assad gassed over 1400 of his people (the same day that the UN inspectors arrived to inspect things). This means that Assad has to be PUNISHED and taught a lesson.

To do this, we are holding the Sword of Damocles over the heads of his entire population to thoroughly terrorize them because they're being told that we will then commence to randomly murder a number of them by firing missiles into their midst.

Have I got that about right?

We have some Senators that want us to kill an even larger number of people than what we're trying for now to teach him an even BIGGER LESSON, and have him replaced by people who behead people and eat their livers (or was it hearts?).

Sorry, but this 'logic' is too twisted for me to get my head around.

...have you got that right? No - that help?

 

[Zam-Zam]

"I would, however, like to see some hard evidence that he is the one behind the atrocity in question before we commit to a course of action. A gas attack did indeed take place in Syria, but so far all we have is the government's word that Assad is behind it. For me, that's not good enough, I'd like something a little more concrete."

That's it?

Where, exactly, did I ask the president to consult me?

You keep trying though, I find it amusing.

 

[NightSwimmer]

That's it?

Where, exactly, did I ask the president to consult me?

You keep trying though, I find it amusing.

Who is it that you want to provide you with "something a little more concrete"?

Why do you think it matters whether you consider the government's word "good enough"? As I said, we don't get a vote.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Who is it that you want to provide you with "something a little more concrete"?

Why do you think it matters whether you consider the government's word "good enough"? As I said, we don't get a vote.

My opinion matters as much or as little as yours, no more no less.

I would like the President to address the nation and show us why he believes Assad is responsible for this attack. or he could release a statement to the press. Perhaps you think that is unreasonable, and the President should do whatever he wants to without letting us know why. That is, after all, how they do things in North Korea.

If the President can show us that Assad is most likely responsible, I'd be for an appropriate military response. Absent that, I would prefer we not commit ourselves. That's all.


You seem to feel no one has any right to question the President's judgement on this. If that is the case, I think you're wrong.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

Ideally, any strike would be a precision strike aimed at military assets designed to limit Assad's ability to launch an offensive against his own people.

Ideally.

Life not being perfect, when the missiles start flying, sometimes there are unintended consequences, as in unintended casualties.

I am no dove. Sometimes you have to punish bullies.

I have no love for Assad. I think he's a thug.

I would, however, like to see some hard evidence that he is the one behind the atrocity in question before we commit to a course of action. A gas attack did indeed take place in Syria, but so far all we have is the government's word that Assad is behind it. For me, that's not good enough, I'd like something a little more concrete.

There is no 'hard' evidence.

Having said that, even if there were...it's not our business.

 

[NightSwimmer]

You can question the Presidents judgment as much as you like. Haven't seen you do much of anything else on this forum.