Active Users:586 Time:24/11/2024 03:03:20 AM
That comparison is not valid. everynametaken Send a noteboard - 05/09/2013 09:25:38 PM

View original post
Now, I am not saying this situation is remotely like that one; Assad is not likely to Pearl Harbor us even if he wants to (though one could argue his dad did via Hezbollah in '83,) and we ARE likely to have plenty of time and warning before he gains that ability. The point is we live in a republic rather than democracy precisely because the majority is not always right (something the German electorate underscored differently shortly before 1940.) Just because the majority do/not want something does not mean the country should/not do it. American majorities have supported slavery, prohibition and more than a few ill-advised military campaigns. That did not make any of them moral or wise, and many things that were both did not suddenly cease to be either when public support vanished.

Assad is not invading anybody, he is fighting a civil war in his country. If our government knows something we don't and wants to help overthrow him then they should use the institutions built to do such things such as the CIA and possibly some Special Forces to help train those we want to support. The government can consider arming them through back channels if they feel it is that important. But, the mission of our military is to uphold our constitution and defend our nation (and to help those we have entered treaties with promising support if they are attacked). Syria has not attacked us, they have not attacked our treaty allies and they are not violating out constitution.
You can yap about Republican forms of government versus a pure democracy where the majority rules no matter how slim the majority, but the fact is that every polling shows very clearly how one sided an affair this is. The nation of the United States of America does not support bombing Syria, it is not even close. Period. Regardless of political party or persuasion.

But wine was the great assassin of both tradition and propriety...
-Brandon Sanderson, The Way of Kings
Reply to message
So... a limited strike on Syria ? - 29/08/2013 04:31:07 PM 1098 Views
I would have supported action over a year ago, but not now. - 29/08/2013 05:29:52 PM 585 Views
Rand Paul is a Leftist now? - 30/08/2013 01:13:17 AM 711 Views
Killing people to not look bad! What a guy! - 29/08/2013 05:44:59 PM 656 Views
Re: So... a limited strike on Syria ? - 29/08/2013 10:43:15 PM 638 Views
I think you're wrong. - 30/08/2013 04:44:53 AM 617 Views
I think the real question is "Just how crazy is Iran?" - 30/08/2013 01:48:49 PM 714 Views
You misunderstood me - 30/08/2013 07:13:41 PM 576 Views
I don't think the Iranians are stupid enough to strike - 01/09/2013 03:04:24 AM 538 Views
I don't really care - 30/08/2013 10:35:55 AM 618 Views
I am not a fan of symbolic bombing - 30/08/2013 12:52:01 PM 623 Views
Looks like the buck inexplicably stops at Congress - 31/08/2013 11:23:20 PM 575 Views
Nice theory, to bad it is crap - 01/09/2013 06:23:31 PM 551 Views
Again, Rand Paul is loony left now? - 01/09/2013 10:15:17 PM 764 Views
Again you seem to have read most the words but completely missed the point - 02/09/2013 06:48:26 PM 698 Views
Fox and Joe Lieberman=/=MSNBC either. - 02/09/2013 10:21:16 PM 703 Views
Yeah, I don't like any of it. - 01/09/2013 12:40:35 AM 582 Views
Glad to hear you think he should more like Bush and asked congrees first - 01/09/2013 06:27:03 PM 520 Views
How about no strike per the American people? Period. Fucking idiots in Washington. - 01/09/2013 05:01:13 AM 609 Views
To be fair, that was what the American people said in 1940 - 02/09/2013 05:19:46 AM 562 Views
Hall has frozen over... you are correct. - 02/09/2013 11:22:13 PM 611 Views
Well, glad we can agree on something. - 03/09/2013 02:00:21 AM 573 Views
That comparison is not valid. - 05/09/2013 09:25:38 PM 585 Views
I have to say, I am opposed to a strike against Assad. - 05/09/2013 10:46:04 AM 570 Views

Reply to Message