General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYou Know The Thought Just Occurred To Me That BushCo Strikes Again.....
BushCo went ahead and lied us into Iraq. They told us of WMD's and mushroom clouds and pulled us into that mire. There really was no justification for that war - but they led us into it anyway.
Now when WMD's have actually been used and there is some real justification to strike a blow to Assad and Syrian Government to teach them a lesson and send a warning shot across the bow of any future despot - to not use WMD's - the world is skeptical, gun shy, war wary and - as was seen in the UK - people are against it. There is also that sentiment here in the U.S.
So bottom line - we are still feeling the effects of BushCo's failures and ineptness - years after they are gone from power.
Now I realize that war and killing of any kind is objectionable to most people - BUT - what if - really - what if - there is a real justification for such - and - because of BushCo - that option is taken off the table of whomever the current leader is of the UK or the US?
Almost like the 'boy who called wolf syndrome' might be playing out - and again - the boy who called wolf (BushCo) originally causes future administrations to perhaps suffer the consequences.
riqster
(13,986 posts)I sure did: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023562375
global1
(25,168 posts)and I've come to the conclusion that no matter which way one thinks about things - whatever they are - there is always others that have a different opinion. That's ok. It's the dialogue between the two that hopefully leads to some coming to some happy medium or compromise.
That's the problem we seem to have in general in this world - when there is some disagreement - people dig in and take sides and sometimes that leads to conflicts and wars.
It's the dialogue that we should all be concentrating on - and try and figure out some ways that varying opinions can co-exist peaceably.
"It's the dialogue that we should all be concentrating on - and try and figure out some ways that varying opinions can co-exist peaceably."
A-Men!
cali
(114,904 posts)there is no justification. And just in case you need a reminder, the U.S. has employed WMDs repeatedly in recent years along with all other kinds of illegal crap- not only under bushco.
In any case, the U.N. inspectors haven't yet reported on their finding re Ghouta. It's disgusting and moronic to rush into war.
Who the fuck do you think the U.S. is?
You're delusional if you think this country is a force for good in the world at this time.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Colin Powell and Bush even though the comparison to what happened over a decade ago is not applicable.
Apparently you haven't read DU'ers claiming "false flag" or the rebels are all Al Qaeda.
global1
(25,168 posts)I'm not advocating getting involved in this Syrian thing. I was simply trying to make a point - and perhaps I didn't state it as clearly as I could have - that - WHAT IF - there really is a justification for a President - any President current or future - to get this country involved - but because of the bad experience we had with BushCo lying us into that Iraq quagmire - that this or any other future President is unable to act?
That's all. I'm just saying that BushCo rotten apple has spoiled the barrel for years to come.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)If you don't want to warmonger with Obama, then you MUST be warmongering with Bush.
Because everyone is a warmonger.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)and it's exactly what quite a few DU'ers a doing.
So the question is, why are some DU'ers unable to be against bombing Syria without accusing Kerry of doing a "Colin Powell" and Obama of being a PNAC'er stooge?
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)...Iraq wasn't our fight. Now, suddenly, as though, oh, someone in the White House sent orders or something, we're
being told that use of chemical weapons requires a military response in Syria, and this supposed "truth" has been
obscured by Bush's lies.
To which I say, give me a break.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)So, I guess we should just repeal the international ban on chemical weapons then?
So, when do we get to use mustard gas on the Taliban?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)stuff from over a decade ago. Stuck in a narrative and unable to see any other scenario.
And at this point I am even further away from accepting bombing as a good idea.
With all this time elapsed Assad will probably have planted a bunch of captives with all his strategic targets so any bombs we drop will surely take out a bunch of innocents.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)And we are justifiably wary of loose justifications for war. There have been far too many applications of unnecessary force and look where it's gotten us.
The UK is no longer our lapdog, which is a very good thing. Use of force, except in extremely limited circumstance (like when someone actually attacks us), should make us a world pariah.
Besides, this is not our fight, why are we the world's police? Shouldn't all other avenues be tried before bombing the shit out of some hellhole? Should we really be siding with these rebels, who are unsavory at best? And who, exactly, would be punished?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Too late now, Syria and Syrians are just plain fucked, with no hope.
That fire can't be put out, it can only be prevented from spreading.
At some point, numbers will win out and we could very well see a genocide of the Allawites. Which again will not be our business.