This picture hurts the heart

[Common]

58 syrians die in gas attack

http://static.reuters.com/resources/media/global/assets/images/20170404/20170404_4215401320170404135836.jpg

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idlib-idUSKBN1760IB

[Bo-4]

Hurts my heart as well.

Even sadder?

Trump has adopted Putin's policy on Assad ...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump-orders-military-in-syria-to-focus-on-isis-rather-than-bashar-alassad-in-major-us-a3503746.html

[Private Pickle]

Hurts my heart as well.

Even sadder?

Trump has adopted Putin's policy on Assad ...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump-orders-military-in-syria-to-focus-on-isis-rather-than-bashar-alassad-in-major-us-a3503746.html
What was Obama's policies on Assad again? Oh that's right... He had none other than to wag his finger in righteous indignation...

[Tahuyaman]

What should Trump's position be with regards to Syria? Regime change? Then where else should he persue that policy next?

[Standing Wolf]

"Well, the U.S. kills people, too." - DJT

Trump has made it clear that the U.S. will "do deals" with whomever, regardless of their internal policies or human rights records, if it - in his eyes - benefits "America".

[Mister D]

"Well, the U.S. kills people, too." - DJT

Trump has made it clear that the U.S. will "do deals" with whomever, regardless of their internal policies or human rights records, if it - in his eyes - benefits "America".

That would place him in the same category as the vast majority of his 20th Century predecessors.

[Bo-4]

"Well, the U.S. kills people, too." - DJT

Trump has made it clear that the U.S. will "do deals" with whomever, regardless of their internal policies or human rights records, if it - in his eyes - benefits "America".

Yep - increasingly clear that whatever Vlad wants ... Vlad gets

https://uncouthreflections.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/putin.jpg?w=240

[Standing Wolf]

That would place him in the same category as the vast majority of his 20th Century predecessors.

Unfortunately, you are correct. America's human rights record, both domestically and internationally, has been spotty at best.

Societies do, however, tend to mature and grow over time in terms of how they understand concepts like humanity and justice.

Trump is simply a reminder that evolution is not a constant.

[decedent]

Syria gas attack reportedly kills dozens, including children
(http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/04/middleeast/idlib-syria-attack/)
Dozens of people, including at least ten children, have been killed in what is suspected to be one of the deadliest chemical attacks in Syria in years, multiple activist groups say.

Airstrikes hit the rebel-held city of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on Tuesday morning, giving off a "poisonous gas," according to Anas al-Diab, an activist with the Aleppo Media Center (AMC).

The Syrian regime says they had nothing to do with it. Should this kind of attack on innocent people, including many children, be allowed?


The Russian and Syrian governments have killed many civilians, including the 2015 attack outside of Damascus. The UN will probably do nothing about it, as usual.


One thing is for certain Trump won't be tweeting about this attack.

[Ethereal]

Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed by conventional weapons in Syria, yet we're supposed to be horrified by a few dozen people who were killed by gas. Why?

And in case you forgot, the US government is responsible for the deaths of many thousands of innocent people, including children, in multiple countries across the world, to say nothing of its allies in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

[decedent]

Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed by conventional weapons in Syria, yet we're supposed to be horrified by a few dozen people who were killed by gas. Why?


This seems to have come from the Syrian government. The civilians are at their mercy.


And in case you forgot, the US government is responsible for the deaths of many thousands of innocent people, including children, in multiple countries across the world, to say nothing of its allies in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.
That's arguable. What isn't arguable is that chemical weapons violate the Geneva convention.

[Ethereal]

How many civilian deaths has the US government caused in Iraq since it invaded and occupied that country in 2003? A conservative estimate from Brown University has it at around 165,000 (http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi).

[Ethereal]

This seems to have come from the Syrian government. The civilians are at their mercy.

And how is that fundamentally any different than how the US government wages war against insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan?


That's arguable.

Not really. The US government's invasion and occupation of Iraq has caused tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of civilian deaths, women and children included.


What isn't arguable is that chemical weapons violate the Geneva convention.

So is intentionally targeting agricultural zones and deliberately starving civilians, but that hasn't stopped Saudi Arabia from bombing Yemenis into oblivion (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-s-bombing-of-yemeni-farmland-is-a-disgraceful-breach-of-the-geneva-conventions-a7376576.html).

[Ethereal]

Or we could look at Turkey where Erdogan has arbitrarily imprisoned (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/turkey-coup-purge-recep-tayyip-erdogan-arrests-latest-a7351781.html) and killed tens of thousands of people, including many journalists and opposition politicians.

[FindersKeepers]

This seems to have come from the Syrian government. The civilians are at their mercy.


That's arguable. What isn't arguable is that chemical weapons violate the Geneva convention.

A couple of years ago -- accusations of gas attacks were levied against Assad, and it turned they came from rebel factions.

It's a bad thing, obviously, no matter who does it, but the propaganda of war is confusing, indeed.

[FindersKeepers]

Or we could look at Turkey where Erdogan has arbitrarily imprisoned (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/turkey-coup-purge-recep-tayyip-erdogan-arrests-latest-a7351781.html) and killed tens of thousands of people, including many journalists and opposition politicians.

No. Look away. Turkey is a member of NATO...

[Mister D]

Unfortunately, you are correct. America's human rights record, both domestically and internationally, has been spotty at best.

Societies do, however, tend to mature and grow over time in terms of how they understand concepts like humanity and justice.

Trump is simply a reminder that evolution is not a constant.
I'm not criticizing that record, mind you. I'm a realist when it comes to politics. It's just that Americans sometimes have extremely short memories.

This is off topic so Common I apologize if you don't appreciate the tangent. Just mention it and it stops immediately.

Wolf, your comments regarding moral evolution presuppose an objective and ultimate reality do they not? If I understand your comments correctly they point to a standard that is not something that merely "works for me" but a concrete fact of existence to which all of our acts should correspond. I mention this because progressives, and many conservatives, spend a great deal of time asserting their independence of any such standard.

[Ethereal]

A couple of years ago -- accusations of gas attacks were levied against Assad, and it turned they came from rebel factions.

It's a bad thing, obviously, no matter who does it, but the propaganda of war is confusing, indeed.

Indeed. It will simply be assumed, with no hard evidence, that Assad was responsible. But I'm willing to concede, for the sake of argument, that he is. What of it? Since when has slaughtering innocent civilians been a problem for the US government or its allies?

[Ethereal]

Hurts my heart as well.

Even sadder?

Trump has adopted Putin's policy on Assad ...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump-orders-military-in-syria-to-focus-on-isis-rather-than-bashar-alassad-in-major-us-a3503746.html
Why is that sad?

[Chris]

Same/similar topics merged.

[FindersKeepers]

Indeed. It will simply be assumed, with no hard evidence, that Assad was responsible. But I'm willing to concede, for the sake of argument, that he is. What of it? Since when has slaughtering innocent civilians been a problem for the US government or its allies?

That's a good point. Yes, a lot of civilians were killed. A high percentage of civilians were also killed during Obama's targeted drone attacks.

Dead is dead.

Do the families of dead poisoned children suffer differently than the families of children slain by our drone attacks?

[Ethereal]

"Well, the U.S. kills people, too." - DJT

Trump has made it clear that the U.S. will "do deals" with whomever, regardless of their internal policies or human rights records, if it - in his eyes - benefits "America".

In other words, the same as every other president since McKinley.

[FindersKeepers]

Hurts my heart as well.

Even sadder?

Trump has adopted Putin's policy on Assad ...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump-orders-military-in-syria-to-focus-on-isis-rather-than-bashar-alassad-in-major-us-a3503746.html

Putin wouldn't have a "policy on Assad" had Obama not funded the rebels in an attempt to overthrow Assad.

Maybe we just need to keep our noses out of the business of other nations when possible. Hundreds of thousands have died because the Obama Administration sought to "free" the Syrians.

What a failure that turned out to be.

[FindersKeepers]

In other words, the same as every other president since McKinley.

Exactly.

[Ethereal]

That's a good point. Yes, a lot of civilians were killed. A high percentage of civilians were also killed during Obama's targeted drone attacks.

Dead is dead.

Do the families of dead poisoned children suffer differently than the families of children slain by our drone attacks?
The US and UK governments treat chemical weapons differently because of WWI. Many of the politicians who went on to craft the international order post-WWII had direct experience with chemical weaponry in WWI. In other words, when it happens to them, they care about it. But when it happens to someone else, they don't. That is why the US and UK governments refuse to sign onto the Convention for Cluster Munitions and why they have been routinely supplying Saudi Arabia with cluster bombs. Because they don't know what it's like to have a bunch of unexploded bomblets spread out across their country for decades.

[Ethereal]

Putin wouldn't have a "policy on Assad" had Obama not funded the rebels in an attempt to overthrow Assad.

Maybe we just need to keep our noses out of the business of other nations when possible. Hundreds of thousands have died because the Obama Administration sought to "free" the Syrians.

What a failure that turned out to be.
You forgot to call them "moderate" rebels! Bad FK!

[Cletus]

"Well, the U.S. kills people, too." - DJT

Trump has made it clear that the U.S. will "do deals" with whomever, regardless of their internal policies or human rights records, if it - in his eyes - benefits "America".

I thought it was the job of the President to act in the best interests of the United States.

[Common]

Soldiers dieing is bad enough, civilians dieing is horrific especially children

[Newpublius]

In other words, the same as every other president since McKinley.

No, no, no, you got that all wrong, Ethereal, they hate us for our 'freedom'

[jimmyz]

Evil men do evil deeds. How pathetic that a member of the human race ordered this attack. I am ashamed of that mans inclusion.

[Tahuyaman]

Soldiers dieing is bad enough, civilians dieing is horrific especially children


So, what should our President do about it? Should he call for regime change, oust Assad followed by nation building?

[Don]

There is so much disinformation out there about Assad and whats happened in Syria I don't think we should believe anything at face value. Our intel gives the side to a story that may or may not be true and the media puts out the information that fits their agenda. If Assad had in fact been using chemicals on his enemies for years but he happened to be our "ally" in the Orwellian sense of ever/never changing alliances we wouldn't even know about it. Any stories about it would be rumors and anyone giving credence to the stories would be labeled conspiracy theorists or mentally ill.

[Mini Me]

I'm not criticizing that record, mind you. I'm a realist when it comes to politics. It's just that Americans sometimes have extremely short memories.

This is off topic so @Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659) I apologize if you don't appreciate the tangent. Just mention it and it stops immediately.

Wolf, your comments regarding moral evolution presuppose an objective and ultimate reality do they not? If I understand your comments correctly they point to a standard that is not something that merely "works for me" but a concrete fact of existence to which all of our acts should correspond. I mention this because progressives, and many conservatives, spend a great deal of time asserting their independence of any such standard.

Why, suh! I am deeply offended! (sputter, sputter)

[Standing Wolf]

Wolf, your comments regarding moral evolution presuppose an objective and ultimate reality do they not? If I understand your comments correctly they point to a standard that is not something that merely "works for me" but a concrete fact of existence to which all of our acts should correspond. I mention this because progressives, and many conservatives, spend a great deal of time asserting their independence of any such standard.

I'm simply thinking of certain conditions and governmental actions that most Americans tolerated or even approved of a relatively short time ago that would horrify most Americans today. Human slavery is undoubtedly the most egregious example. The incarceration of citizens en masse because of their race; there are members of this board who were alive when the Japanese-American internment camps were in operation. Most Americans, whatever their ideology or political tendencies, would never tolerate a government that treated, or allowed the sort of treatment of, American Indians, women, gay people, orphans, even animals that was accepted as "normal" a century or two ago. That's what I'm referring to when I say that societies tend to come, over time, to a certain understanding with regard to the concepts of humanity and justice. That doesn't mean that every "advanced" society necessarily has to look exactly like every other...but I'd say that a society which treats people decently and neither exploits or abuses them is probably on the right track.

[Tahuyaman]

Yes, what is happening over there is a human tragedy of mammoth proportions. Who should take action and what actions should be taken?

Obviously the UN is useless and something like this was supposed to be in their wheel house when it was created.

[Mister D]

I'm simply thinking of certain conditions and governmental actions that most Americans tolerated or even approved of a relatively short time ago that would horrify most Americans today. Human slavery is undoubtedly the most egregious example. The incarceration of citizens en masse because of their race; there are members of this board who were alive when the Japanese-American internment camps were in operation. Most Americans, whatever their ideology or political tendencies, would never tolerate a government that treated, or allowed the sort of treatment of, American Indians, women, gay people, orphans, even animals that was accepted as "normal" a century or two ago. That's what I'm referring to when I say that societies tend to come, over time, to a certain understanding with regard to the concepts of humanity and justice. That doesn't mean that every "advanced" society necessarily has to look exactly like every other...but I'd say that a society which treats people decently and neither exploits or abuses them is probably on the right track.
Oh, I understand that but...on the right track toward what? Advancing toward what? That's what I'm getting at. Your comments presuppose an objective standard that your progressive compatriots, and some conservatives, often deny. Ethics and morality, I'm told, are the product of arbitrary sentiment and do not correspond to the way things really are. Certain members of this forum steadfastly reject any ultimate standard, truth or reality but then many of their arguments presuppose it. I'm not lumping you into this group. Your comments just made me think of this phenomenon.

[Common]

So, what should our President do about it? Should he call for regime change, oust Assad followed by nation building?

Im not advocating anything, I thought it was clear that pictures of dead children makes me very sad. That was the only point of my thread

[Starman]

Evil men do evil deeds. How pathetic that a member of the human race ordered this attack. I am ashamed of that mans inclusion.

Your being "ashamed" does what, exactly?
Are you ashamed of every murder committed? Every rape? Every horrific act by anyone, anywhere?
Are you ashamed of the 1,000,000 unborn babies murdered every year just in the United States?
Are you ashamed of our firebombing Dresden? Tokyo? Nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Even if those bombings saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides, and the U.S. told Japan that they
would be utterly destroyed unless they surrendered unconditionally? They chose to fight on, even after suffering
horrific casualties which make the Syria attack look like just another day of Islamic terrorism.

[jimmyz]

Your being "ashamed" does what, exactly?
Are you ashamed of every murder committed? Every rape? Every horrific act by anyone, anywhere?
Are you ashamed of the 1,000,000 unborn babies murdered every year just in the United States?
Are you ashamed of our firebombing Dresden? Tokyo? Nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Even if those bombings saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides, and the U.S. told Japan that they
would be utterly destroyed unless they surrendered unconditionally? They chose to fight on, even after suffering
horrific casualties which make the Syria attack look like just another day of Islamic terrorism.

Give your thumbs a break man.

[MisterVeritis]

"Well, the U.S. kills people, too." - DJT

Trump has made it clear that the U.S. will "do deals" with whomever, regardless of their internal policies or human rights records, if it - in his eyes - benefits "America".
Is there some other policy that makes sense? Is America such a foreign concept to you that you feel the need to put it in quotation marks?

[MisterVeritis]

(http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/04/middleeast/idlib-syria-attack/)The Syrian regime says they had nothing to do with it. Should this kind of attack on innocent people, including many children, be allowed?
What would you do to prevent it?

[Mini Me]

The US and UK governments treat chemical weapons differently because of WWI. Many of the politicians who went on to craft the international order post-WWII had direct experience with chemical weaponry in WWI. In other words, when it happens to them, they care about it. But when it happens to someone else, they don't. That is why the US and UK governments refuse to sign onto the Convention for Cluster Munitions and why they have been routinely supplying Saudi Arabia with cluster bombs. Because they don't know what it's like to have a bunch of unexploded bomblets spread out across their country for decades.
Add to that depleted uranium artillary we used in Iraq! Agent Orange in Nam, etc.