IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
Topic History of: Great unanswered questions... Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
Author
Message
JK2006
Fair enough ITK; you think we should interfere in the internal activities of other countries, I don't. End of discussion. So let's curtail further hysteria on either side; it gets repetitive and boring.
In The Know
JK2006 wrote: The Nazis were invading other countries. That needed stopping.
... and just as Churchill warned repeatedly that they should be stopped - and was ignored by the appeasers - it lead directly to even great horror and killing (WW2).
If people had listened to Churchill during the 1930s, there may never have been WW2.
Letting tyrants "get away with it" never stops them - it simply emboldens them to go on and on (and also encourages others to do the same). That doesn't make the world safer - it leads directly to greater threats to ALL of us.
This is Obama's "Churchill" moment - he cannot stand again as President, but history can judge him.
You - ITK - have been going on and on about Bomb Syria for long before this latest "reason" or excuse.
Correct.
I don't think we should ignore people who are desperate for help.
If we don't help them others will (and are) - then you will complain that you don't like the others ! We should help them to "shape" their future - not ignore them and then complain when they make the "wrong" choices !!
It is in our national interest to help the Syrian people - so they don't see us as the enemy (as Iran does) when they win (which they will).
JK2006
I applaud your hope that all forms of war get outlawed but it ain't gonna happen and that is not the point - the point is; why are world leaders so obsessed by interfering in another country's civil war simply because of the use of one kind of killing as opposed to another? Am I not right to think it's just an excuse; just as they found OTHER excuses to interfere in Libya and Iraq and Afghanistan...
You, ITK, are a great example of this attitude and approach. You seem always to encourage invasion, bombing, interference. Now that in some cases might be right. Falklands - we went to war with another country trying to take over the country - but it was OUR country; British. I wouldn't have supported the USA or the French getting involved in the dispute but I did support UK action as it was defending UK citizens in a UK territory (like it or not; agree with it or not; it is British and needed defending).
The Nazis were invading other countries. That needed stopping.
If Syria was taking over Lebanon - I'd say there was a good argument for supporting UN action.
But civil war - one set of Syrians wanting control over another... we must NOT interfere.
And using the methods one side may or may not be using to kill the other is an excuse; not a real true reason.
I can't even remember why we justified bombing Libya. I do remember why we justified Iraq - weapons of mass destruction? An excuse - like chemical weapons. You- ITK - have been going on and on about Bomb Syria for long before this latest "reason" or excuse.
I think there is far more reason to stop Israelis invading Palestine than supporting one side against another in an internal conflict. Even in Iran (ghastly persecution of minorities) - it's their awful problem, not ours. And I think hanging gay children is just as much an offence against humanity as gassing killers.
In The Know
JK2006 wrote: Fair enough; thank God bombing and other forms of mass killing are allowed and encouraged.
I wish they weren't ... but while we work on outlawing them shall we are by upholding the law on those that ARE already banned ?
JK2006
Fair enough; thank God bombing and other forms of mass killing are allowed and encouraged.