Not "specifically", no, but your dodging of direct answers to the questions you asked(!) implies that you think it is so. Why not answer the question directly: Do you think that a country using chemical weapons on its own civilians should be immediately condemned?
That's not relevance, that's a reiteration of the statement itself: I'm aware that some people say the US has a do as I say, not as I do attitude. So what? Your answer does not say why you think it matters.
No, they don't. They address the question you asked which was what gives anyone the moral authority to intervene, period. That is a completely separate issue from whether other countries created it. Your question said nothing about other countries created the problem. You're dodging your own question!
Different about what, from what?
Indeed: I have a very strong bias toward reputable, mainstream sources because I am driven by a desire to be led by facts/truth. You and several others apparently have a very strong bias in favor of crackpottery when it favors your position.
To the contrary, some military actions have in the past ended the suffering and death.
No one is suggesting we destroy Syria. That's not on the table. Your (and others) continued referencing of it is a strawman.
References of Iraq and Afghanistan are strawmen. Our involvement in Syria will not resemble those actions at all. It will look like Libya, which directly led to an ending of the suffering and death.
This is an internal struggle, so there isn't anything for diplomacy to do. Yet, to be sure, people have tried.
As said previously: that opinion means that you think the UN should be dissolved because the UN charter and other mandates contain such rights.
No. No one is suggesting "boots on the ground" in Syria and Iran isn't even a topic of conversation here. Both are just strawmen you and others are bringing up.
As said, I have a strong bias toward reliable facts and truth.
If your bias prevents you from accepting positions not consistent with your beliefs or worse demands rejection of proven facts because they say things you don't want to believe then yes, you may be wasting your time.
I notice nothing in your post addressed the issue of the current suffering of the Syrian people. That's despicable.
You, billvon and others: your positions seem calibrated to contradict the US, regardless of the fact that the US's opinion is widely held in the West and regardless of what is happening to the Syrian people. Regardless of whether the Syrian government used the chemical weapons, it still happened. If you honestly believed the Syrian rebels used chemical weapons on themselves/each other (and if you cared), you should be proposing a course of action designed to stop that rather than merely opposing the chosen course of action. For example, if the rebels are the ones who used the chemical weapons, the only place they could have gotten them is from the Syrian government. So our response should be to send troops in to seize and secure the Syrian government's chemical weapons. Right?
YYUR,YYUB,ICURYY4ME !!??!!
Bend, Fold, Mutilate!!
Selective input filters! Redundant output!
You cannot read my writing - yet you can know what I think - and all without bias, prejudice or preconceptions - truly awesome.
I must repeat : YYUR,YYUB,ICURYY4ME ??!!??
Your statement : - "Not "specifically", no, but your dodging of direct answers to the questions you asked(!) implies that you think it is so.
How is : - a.) - I DID NOT state, NOR do I think "that one country's bad actions excuse another country's bad actions".
b.) - I DID NOT "specifically" state, NOR do I "specifically" think "that the US doing bad things makes it morally acceptable for Syria to do bad things." - "dodging of direct answers" ?!!
Then you ask : - " Why not answer the question directly: Do you think that a country using chemical weapons on its own civilians should be immediately condemned?"
MY ANSWER! : - I think a that a country using weapons of any kind on it's own populace, or another nations populace, just plain flat out WRONG - and should be a lot more than just "immediately condemned"!
Your statement : - "For example, if the rebels are the ones who used the chemical weapons, the only place they could have gotten them is from the Syrian government."
The logic, intelligence and critical thinking that initiated that statement is, indeed, impeccable and without flaw. A shining example of a truly independent thought from an exceptionally well informed world citizen.
Of course my blinders are precisely calibrated, Mr. Russ_Watters, how else would I possibly be able (in your genius perception) to not see that the precision surgical strikes on only military targets, taking only hours, or at most, a few days, with no "boots on the ground", have not completely eliminated the suffering and death of the citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya...
I must, in your world view, be nothing but a "conspiracy theorist" - a purveyor of "crack pottery" and a "strawman".
But, hey, my views, thoughts or perceptions obviously fail miserably at getting past your filters. And of course - by you knowing what I think before even I do - I cannot care about the suffering of any nations civilians.
I mean, after all, if I did - why would I be Posting in this Thread?
View attachment 6483
Mr. Russ_Watters, go ahead and keep on accepting that fraudulent "Bill of Goods" that the "Mass Media " has repeatedly "sold" to you, and keep on satiating your "thirst for True Knowledge" with the "Kool-Aid" that is dispensed.
It seems to have made you immeasurably wise to this point - there would seem to be no reason to change that.
