CNN tries to push narrative to make Trump look bad and it backfires

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-09-2017, 02:27 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Apples to oranges.

Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait and refused to withdraw from the region. How is that comparable to what is going on with Syria?



Hard on?

I'm not saying we should start sending in US troops all willy nilly to oust Assad. I'm just saying I'm in support of military action, but I'm not sure as to what I would support concerning it. Even if I am completely supportive of sending in troops, I don't see why I'm disqualified of supporting that position just because I'm not in the military. If I was sitting here criticizing American citizens for not joining the military but not in the military myself, your argument would actually make sense. Right now it doesn't.

It's not apples to oranges. Use of military force is use of military force. Any country always has the right to defend itself without UN approval. Otherwise, there is a protocol like we followed during Desert Storm. That protocol applies to use of military force directed against countries for internal conflicts as the case is with Syria now.

It's easier to suggest others should go off to combat than yourself or a family member. Assad is responsible for war crimes. There is a right way and a wrong way to try to remove him. The situation is already complicated enough without adding another forceful regime change while risking openarmed conflict with Russia instead of the quasi-proxy war we are both supporting currently.

There is still a chance for diplomacy that by cooperating to defeat ISIS Russia, Syria, the US, the UN, and other interested parties could negotiate Assad to step down or follow Saddam's fate. That would be better for both Assad, the people of Syria, and the US.

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-09-2017, 04:23 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It's not apples to oranges. Use of military force is use of military force. Any country always has the right to defend itself without UN approval. Otherwise, there is a protocol like we followed during Desert Storm. That protocol applies to use of military force directed against countries for internal conflicts as the case is with Syria now. 

No, it is apples to oranges. For one, the Soviet Union, not Russia, existed during the Gulf War. The Soviet Union was at the end of its days and nearing collapse. There was mass division and political confusion and a collapsing economy on their hands. In other words, the Soviet Union was in no position to defend the acts of Iraq invading Kuwait. Iraq wasn't shooting chemical weapons at civilians, they took an entire country and claimed it as theres. This was a highly detestable act that the Soviet Union simply could not defend, nor were they in a position to due to their own internal struggles. The Soviets were not looking to get themselves in any more trouble by not supporting the UN resolution. So they opted to vote in favor of the resolution, thinking that Saddam would actually withdraw from Kuwait by the deadline. They were wrong and underestimated the lunacy of Saddam, who in response to the resolution didn't budge an inch. 

Kuwait was also the only pro-Soviet country in the region at the time which also inclined the Soviets to support them rather than Saddam. During the time of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, the Soviet leader was trying to counter the collapse of the Soviet Union by building relationships with other countries, mainly the United States. This put Gorbachev in a tight spot and the Soviets basically had no choice other than to support the resolution.

What's going on with Syria is not the same. Different countries, different leaders, different political climate, different interests.

Quote:It's easier to suggest others should go off to combat than yourself or a family member. 

But that's not my argument. I never suggested that others should go fight in an armed conflict while I sit comfortably at home. That's a perversion of what I said. I simply said I support military action. Whoever decides to be in the military is their choice. I'm  just saying I support the military efforts and those who choose to be in that line of duty., assuming that the conflict we're involved in is being fought appropriately and something we should actually be involved in.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-09-2017, 06:03 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: No, it is apples to oranges. For one, the Soviet Union, not Russia, existed during the Gulf War. The Soviet Union was at the end of its days and nearing collapse. There was mass division and political confusion and a collapsing economy on their hands. In other words, the Soviet Union was in no position to defend the acts of Iraq invading Kuwait. Iraq wasn't shooting chemical weapons at civilians, they took an entire country and claimed it as theres. This was a highly detestable act that the Soviet Union simply could not defend, nor were they in a position to due to their own internal struggles. The Soviets were not looking to get themselves in any more trouble by not supporting the UN resolution. So they opted to vote in favor of the resolution, thinking that Saddam would actually withdraw from Kuwait by the deadline. They were wrong and underestimated the lunacy of Saddam, who in response to the resolution didn't budge an inch. 

Kuwait was also the only pro-Soviet country in the region at the time which also inclined the Soviets to support them rather than Saddam. During the time of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, the Soviet leader was trying to counter the collapse of the Soviet Union by building relationships with other countries, mainly the United States. This put Gorbachev in a tight spot and the Soviets basically had no choice other than to support the resolution.

What's going on with Syria is not the same. Different countries, different leaders, different political climate, different interests.

Every situation is different. Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. Yet, the protocol to use military force remains the same.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2118

By unilaterally attacking Syria without a vote by the UN Security Council, the US is in violation of the same legally binding UN resolution Trump attacked Syria for violating by using chemical weapons which means we have lost any moral high ground we used to justify our attack on Syria.

Quote:But that's not my argument. I never suggested that others should go fight in an armed conflict while I sit comfortably at home. That's a perversion of what I said. I simply said I support military action. Whoever decides to be in the military is their choice. I'm  just saying I support the military efforts and those who choose to be in that line of duty., assuming that the conflict we're involved in is being fought appropriately and something we should actually be involved in.

Ah, but you did suggest others go to war by "supporting" military intervention. And you also suggested you would sit at home comfortably while others go off to war because you won't be among them. Claiming otherwise is the true perversion especially when your support literally begins and ends with the sentence, "I support military action." Or maybe you can explain how your support extends to anything tangible other than you reflexively writing one empty sentence with no more thought than that used during a blink reflex. Does that type of support actually do anything except make you feel better about yourself for not actually doing anything? It's lazy, self-serving, self-delusion so you can have your millennial version of MTV while sipping your Venti Latte Skinny Soy No Caff whatever while going home to Momma every night to plop your skinny jeans wearing ass on that couch to snap twit, book face, perigram, instascope what you had for dinner on your ever present iPhone infinity with a clear conscience. (And by you/your/etc of course I mean you/your/etc in the business sense, not you personally.)

How better to show your support of military action than by volunteering for the infantry? Action speaks louder than empty platitudes.

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-09-2017, 07:21 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Ah, but you did suggest others go to war by "supporting" military intervention. And you also suggested you would sit at home comfortably while others go off to war because you won't be among them. Claiming otherwise is the true perversion especially when your support literally begins and ends with the sentence, "I support military action."  Or maybe you can explain how your support extends to anything tangible other than you reflexively writing one empty sentence with no more thought than that used during a blink reflex. Does that type of support actually do anything except make you feel better about yourself for not actually doing anything? It's lazy, self-serving, self-delusion so you can have your millennial version of MTV while sipping your Venti Latte Skinny Soy No Caff whatever while going home to Momma every night to plop your skinny jeans wearing ass on that couch to snap twit, book face, perigram, instascope what you had for dinner on your ever present iPhone infinity with a clear conscience. (And by you/your/etc of course I mean you/your/etc in the business sense, not you personally.)

How better to show your support of military action than by volunteering for the infantry?  Action speaks louder than empty platitudes.

What a load of drivel.

This is a message board and I voiced my opinion that I support military action. Somehow, you sit here and seem to think that one cannot make such statements unless they are physically right in the midst of the matters of which they discuss. Get off your high horse. Please tell me how many things you've "supported" that you actually gone out of your way to physically support in some manner? As a matter of fact, have you physically gone out and protested the airstrikes? Did you actually physically go out and protest Trump? Did you actually go out and "support" the travel ban protests? I'm sure you've actually gone out and supported every little thing you say you "support" or rather actually protested what you "don't support".

Just because someone wants to say that they "support" military action but then not actually go suit up and fight does not mean that they can't state their opinion on the matter of whether they "support" it or not. You also seem to think that putting on military uniforms and shooting guns is the only way one can show support for a military intervention. That's a skewed way of thinking. Vocal support can actually mean more than you think it means and can be the difference between something happening or not happening. I hope you go to the nearest police academy tomorrow and become a police officer so that you can show that you actually "support" them.