U.S. shoots 50-60 Tomahawk Missiles at Assad's Airforce

[Guy Threepwood]

Won't take too long, I'm sure. I do enjoy debating with you.

likewise, you have a unique perspective on many topics I think

 

[VioletVortex]

The problem with this is that it creates more excuses for immigrants from the Middle East to pour into the western world. Completely contradictory of Trump's professed ideology. He's a puppet, being paid to lie and then do the complete opposite of what he speaks.

 

[suncowiam]

It's not turning a blind eye. It's acknowledging that our continued support of this regime or that, one state or another, is having a very negative consequence. Global terrorism being one of those consequences. England failed, Russia failed, Europe as a whole tended to fail, why are we continuing to do this? And to add insult to injury, many of those nations didn't even get to draw their "imaginary lines," as England and France took it upon themselves to do that.

I said the strategy of killing many civilians is something that works in a video game.

No, we shouldn't. We have no right to tell people how to live and set up their governments. You also have to consider that though we say we are bringing freedom and democracy, we tend to leave wide destruction and piles on dead bodies in our wake. ISIS performed mass executions, America raised a building filled with civilians. They both say they are bringing peace, but to the commoner they only bring the sword. America claimed it was going to bring peace and democracy to Iraq, but it delivered chaos and destruction. Very literally, homosexuals have not had the same level of tolerance that they had under Saddam.

I don't make demands of someone to do as I say in their own home, no.

Do you think all of Syria is owned by Assad?

Your logic when summarized implies I can't fight for others because its none of my business.

Where would US slaves be today if the North didn't fight for their liberation? Why was it anyone's business in the first place when one could simply own or not own slaves?

What about your rights as a transexual? Or homosexuals that do not have the same equalities in the work place and so on? There could be no further truth than these examples being none of my business because I know no one that are either openly gay or a transexual. Yet, I continue to speak up for their rights and vote for legislation that furthers that. This is what I can do. Will you simply say again that it's none of my business?

What makes you so different than the people being oppressed in Syria or North Korea?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your logic when summarized implies I can't fight for others because its none of my business.

No, I said we should stay out because there are dire consequences for not doing so. Europe especially if facing an increasing threat from global terrorism. It's also very expensive and a massive burden on the tax payers. It's also unwinable. There is also the cost of civilian life. To many, the American military poses a much greater danger than the extremist groups the American military fights against.

 

[columbus]

What makes you so different than the people being oppressed in Syria or North Korea?

We can do something about our internal problems without resorting to ill advised violence.
Tom

 

[suncowiam]

No, I said we should stay out because there are dire consequences for not doing so. Europe especially if facing an increasing threat from global terrorism. It's also very expensive and a massive burden on the tax payers. It's also unwinable. There is also the cost of civilian life. To many, the American military poses a much greater danger than the extremist groups the American military fights against.

Could the dire consequences be other millions of humans having to live in oppression and with little to no freedom? Why do you not consider that but more on the economics?

Did the North know that they would win the Civil War? Did South Koreans know that they would live better lives than their North Korean counterparts?

We have to prioritize the fundamentals first. It is fundamentally wrong for people to live in a dictatorship when being oppressed by a few. It is fundamentally right that they deserve a form of democracy and freedom. That is the fundamental issue. We are all human so I will not consider economics when discussing human rights. Either we defend democracy and freedom for everyone, or we don't. This doesn't distinguish people living in and out of the US. A Somalian, a Syrian, a North Korean deserves no less rights and freedom than you do. A homosexual or transexual deserves no less rights and freedom than a heterosexual.

We can do something about our internal problems without resorting to ill advised violence.
Tom

I can tell you that homosexuality and transexuality is not within my "internal" problems. This again just demonstrates the perception of borders and imaginary lines and how it affects who deserves rights and freedom.

For some folks, only violence through armed conflict can resolve their rights and freedom. Luckily for you, you were born in a location allowing you to "fight" with little to no violence for your rights. I would suppose that if you were born in a war torn area like Syria or in an impoverished oppressed area like North Korea, you might think differently.

 

[columbus]

For some folks, only violence through armed conflict can resolve their rights and freedom.

That isn't really the question here, though.
The question is "Will USA military intervention give Syrians freedom, security, and prosperity? "
I see no reason to think it will. I don't trust the rebels and believe that deposing Assad will probably lead to ISIS domination in the area.

It is not like there isn't history to learn from here. There is.
Tom

 

[suncowiam]

That isn't really the question here, though.
The question is "Will USA military intervention give Syrians freedom, security, and prosperity? "
I see no reason to think it will. I don't trust the rebels and believe that deposing Assad will probably lead to ISIS domination in the area.

It is not like there isn't history to learn from here. There is.
Tom

My point is... What is our goal or value? One action does not fix anything. But does the action align to our values. I'm not going to go into all the strategical and tactical areas of obtaining democracy and freedom so let's not jump into that. I'm saying our goal as a Democracy and as a nation that values Freedom should always act in accordance of such values regardless of the recipients of those actions.

 

[columbus]

I'm saying our goal as a Democracy and as a nation that values Freedom should always act in accordance of such values regardless of the recipients of those actions.

I totally agree.
I also think that there are places we could accomplish those goals without violence and using violence is unlikely to accomplish them.

Why don't we fight for freedom, security, and prosperity for the Haitian people? Why doesn't that get onto the news?
Tom

 

[suncowiam]

I totally agree.
I also think that there are places we could accomplish those goals without violence and using violence is unlikely to accomplish them.

Why don't we fight for freedom, security, and prosperity for the Haitian people? Why doesn't that get onto the news?
Tom

I don't know why we don't. We should.

I'm not going to argue against anyone that would agree to fight for Haitans. I'm not going to argue about the economics of fighting for Haitians. I'm not going to argue about the hypothetical of winning a fight for Haitians. I will simply suggest that if they are struggling with oppression then we should definitely help them.

Now, plug in any other terms or labels for human beings into that summary and you'll have my consistent response.

 

[esmith]

To do that we would have had to fight the government of Iraq and USA public opinion. You would now be blaming Obama for arrogantly ignoring the Bush ADministration, the Iraqis, and USA public opinion.
Tom

Bush was wrong, Obama was wrong, and the US public opinion is now confused mainly because Bush was wrong and Obama was wrong.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Could the dire consequences be other millions of humans having to live in oppression and with little to no freedom?

For them, the dire consequences are those claiming to be their "liberators" and the "bringers of freedom and democracy" posing a much greater mortal danger than those doing the oppression. When you go "fight to spread democracy" and find only one abysmal failure after another after another, it's time to change policy and strategy. America keeps doing this, though, and it keeps producing our greatest threats and dangers. Che, Bin Laden, ISIS, the actions of the American military and other government agencies helped to create and bolster these people. It cleared the way for ISIS, it armed Bin Laden, and it made Che go from med student to household name Revolutionist.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We are all human so I will not consider economics when discussing human rights.

I am a Communist, and even I realize that long wars are expensive and crippling to a state. Even Sun Tsu warned of this centuries ago. If you can't fund a war, you shouldn't be waging them, and if you can't fund a war, how can you fund the defense of your nation? America is trillions in debt from suffering a decade of constant war. This is indeed a problem not just economically, but a major problem for political and social stability.

 

[suncowiam]

I am a Communist, and even I realize that long wars are expensive and crippling to a state. Even Sun Tsu warned of this centuries ago. If you can't fund a war, you shouldn't be waging them, and if you can't fund a war, how can you fund the defense of your nation? America is trillions in debt from suffering a decade of constant war. This is indeed a problem not just economically, but a major problem for political and social stability.

So, if it were your rights being oppressed, you're fine if other people consider their economical, political and social stability before yours?

Here's the thing. If given that choice, everyone should prioritize their own stability before the next man. Why then, should I care for your rights as a transexual if I already have the rights guaranteed to me as a heterosexual? I don't need to spend further energy in liberating you? I don't need to vote for legislation to allow you equal pay or equal use of the bathroom. There's nothing in for me. I don't need to defend you from religion. I don't need to do anything but live my life as if transexuality doesn't even exist.

Like I pointed out earlier, you're drawing imaginary lines to differentiate yourself and others. Your oppression seems to be more important because you live here and you feel you have more right to direct who America defends concerning democracy and freedom.

 

[Wirey]

The US Tomahawk missile is 20 feet 6 inches long. The Russian equivalent, the Kh-55, is 24 feet 5 inches long. Maybe Trump was just getting rid of them so he could build ones that are bigger than Putin's.

 

[columbus]

Why then, should I care for your rights as a transexual if I already have the rights guaranteed to me as a heterosexual? I don't need to spend further energy in liberating you? I don't need to vote for legislation to allow you equal pay or equal use of the bathroom. There's nothing in for me.

Here's the difference.
You can do something positive for the USA internal issues, and you can pretty well tell what the results will be. It won't include death and destruction.
That is simply not the case in Syria. The USA has a long and torturous history of meddling there and the results have been consistently disastrous. The current mess in Syria is, in large part, due to previous meddling in affairs we don't understand. More of the same is just more of the same.
It isn't that I don't care about the suffering of innocent Syrians. I just think that we don't know what will happen if we pursue violence and it will probably be yet another disaster. I see no way that using military force can help the people. What I expect is that the most ruthless players will exploit USA ignorance for their own ends. Like in Iraq and Libya to name a couple of recent episodes.
We can't fix Syria by force. High ideals (which always leave me deeply suspicious when coming from a USA administration) won't guarantee a good end.
Tom

 

[suncowiam]

Here's the difference.
You can do something positive for the USA internal issues, and you can pretty well tell what the results will be. It won't include death and destruction.
That is simply not the case in Syria. The USA has a long and torturous history of meddling there and the results have been consistently disastrous. The current mess in Syria is, in large part, due to previous meddling in affairs we don't understand. More of the same is just more of the same.
It isn't that I don't care about the suffering of innocent Syrians. I just think that we don't know what will happen if we pursue violence and it will probably be yet another disaster. I see no way that using military force can help the people. What I expect is that the most ruthless players will exploit USA ignorance for their own ends. Like in Iraq and Libya to name a couple of recent episodes.
We can't fix Syria by force. High ideals (which always leave me deeply suspicious when coming from a USA administration) won't guarantee a good end.
Tom

We fixed slavery by force. Was it necessary? Probably was... We fixed World War II by force. Was it necessary? Probably...

If there is a path for non-violent change then I'll agree with you. If Assad or Kim Jong Un being in power is the cause of more people having to suffer then I will push for whatever force when needed. If it can be as simple as them stepping down then sure, let's hope they do that.

The use of terms like meddling is just a perspective. It is definitely my goal to stop tyranny and oppression where I can. Otherwise, I could be simply meddling with conservatives that choose to oppress sexuality to preserve their culture. Again, why is it my business to defend homosexuals and transexuals?

I just see arbitrary lines being drawn in the sand. You have to support Freedom for ALL or it simply doesn't make sense. It is contradicting to suggest that only a few deserve Freedom including yourself while you let your fellow man suffer.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So, if it were your rights being oppressed, you're fine if other people consider their economical, political and social stability before yours?

Actually I don't want people firing bullets to end the repression of my rights. And I certainly wouldn't want bombs being dropped in cities here over it. If it's a case of a place like Iraq, then no I wouldn't want such "assistance." And such changes are generally and typically not well received when they are delivered along with bullets and bombs. Any significant change must come from within, because as Iraq II demonstrated, there are other lunatics and nuts waiting in line to take over, and sometimes if not more often than not they are worse than the last.

I just see arbitrary lines being drawn in the sand. You have to support Freedom for ALL or it simply doesn't make sense. It is contradicting to suggest that only a few deserve Freedom including yourself while you let your fellow man suffer.

Freedom doesn't mean you have the right to impose your ways on others.

 

[suncowiam]

Actually I don't want people firing bullets to end the repression of my rights. And I certainly wouldn't want bombs being dropped in cities here over it. If it's a case of a place like Iraq, then no I wouldn't want such "assistance." And such changes are generally and typically not well received when they are delivered along with bullets and bombs. Any significant change must come from within, because as Iraq II demonstrated, there are other lunatics and nuts waiting in line to take over, and sometimes if not more often than not they are worse than the last.

Freedom doesn't mean you have the right to impose your ways on others.

Do you seriously expect change to come within in dictatorships where the dictactors have military power? I find that very unrealistic. It's not like the government is a democracy or a republic to enable change which is the whole point of this debate in the first place. Sorry, but that's a ludicious statement to make to suggest that North Koreans go fix their own government. They would be slaughtered.

That's like me suggesting that heterosexuals do not intervene in the freedom of homosexuals and transexuals because it's not our fight. Without rational liberal heterosexuals, your fight would be much harder. You are in the minority.

I'm finding your whole debate to by quite selfish and contradicting as someone who faces oppression but then is ok with the oppression of others. Sorry, I'm done. I don't think there's anything else to discuss. We're just repeating ourselves.

I'll still support the equality of homosexuals and transexuals, regardless. Just like I'll continue to support the freedom from those being oppressed by dictactors. It's no different to me.

Also, to enable freedom, it does mean we have to impose restrictions to the oppressors. Slave owners no longer have right to own slaves. In your case, religion no longer can enable legislation like same sex marriage or the bathroom bill... Youre kind of suggesting contradicting ideals just to support your stance but your stance is one side of the same coin.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you seriously expect change to come within in dictatorships where the dictactors have military power?

It has before. Even in some Muslim majority nations and ethnicities we are seeing changes for the good. This approach of "do it our way or we'll bomb you" is a mentality that works in priming certain groups and individuals for radicalization. It didn't change Vietnam, Korea, and it plunged Iraq into a state of civil war that likely get worse before it gets better.