TBD on Ning
WMDs...
Weapons of mass destruction have been a topic of discussion and action within the last decade or so, as America and Americans have had to deal with a dangerous world and those within it that wished, America and Americans, and those allied with us, harm, serious harm.
Weapons of mass destruction has also been used as a reason, a justification, to deploy
preemptive military action to stop, neutralize and remove these weapons from those that
possessed them and could and would use them against us or our allies. However, the question has been, if these weapons do exist, but can't be verified, or, are only rumored to exist, can that be and should that be enough cause to still take preemptive military action even if it is a mistaken assumption.
10 years ago, that assumption was made, though firmly espoused that WMD did exist and were ready and going to be used. That assumption was then the justification for Gulf War II, the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein, and the liberation of the Iraqi people from the Ba'athist regime. Today, the start of Gulf War II, was noted with explosions and death of over 50 people in Baghdad.
Today, it was also reported that someone in Syria used a chemical weapon to kill around 26 people. The Obama administration has warned the Syrian government that there will be serious consequences, military action consequences, if WMD is deployed and used on its people.
The president could not be in a more difficult situation as to what to do and whom to do it to, as he, in but hours, will be in the heart of the area of conflict.
Other than being exposed to possible enemies, the president has to decide and explain what actions he anticipates and will taken in dealing with serious threats in and from; Syria, Gaza, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea, Egypt and North and Central Africa and other parts of the world and situations where there is a financial crisis in Cyprus. And most of these threats are but a few hundreds of miles from where the president will be for the next few days.
Do we live at a crucial moment? Yes, we do. What we do or don't do as a result will set the terms of the next decade, or so, as to an era of peace and prosperity or, something else, such as a rein of terror from WMDs.
Views: 41
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by LoveLife&Laughter on
-
Oh yeah, the mushroom clouds...
-
-
Permalink Reply by ProblemAgain on
-
geeee just this sunday there was a retired american general who had been involved in the iraq war on one of the sunday news shows. his position essentially was that we should get involved in syria or lose what we have gained in iraq. now i suspect he has never met a situation where military force should NOT be applied. what did we gain from the trillions of dollars and thousands of lives spent in iraq? well. we no longer have a stable country controlled by an egomaniacal dictator...so that's good, right? maybe not, cause he was on our side more often than not and now we have an unstable country being fought over by various and sundry factions who, quite frankly, don't give a shit about america except as a tool to gain followers by being against us or as a tool to extract money FROM us...pardon me if i fail to see a plus on the map whatsoever...and as far as trying to put the genii back in the bottle...seems like the only way that would happen would be to wipe out the entire command and defense structure of any country we deemed a risk to us..after all, how do you retract knowledge once it is out there?
-
-
-
One question... What have we gained in Iraq?
-
-
-
by 'we' , do you mean america? a big zero....but if you mean halliburton and kbr and blackwater and etc, i can hear carl sagan's voice..."billions and billions and billions"
-
-
-
BAGHDAD -- An al-Qaida-affiliated group in Iraq claimed responsibility on Wednesday for bloody attacks that killed dozens of people across the country a day earlier.
In a statement posted on a militant website, the Islamic State of Iraq said the car bombs and other explosions came to avenge the executions and "massacres" of convicted Sunni inmates held in Iraqi prisons.
Most of the nearly 20 attacks on Tuesday, the eve of the 10th anniversary of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, targeted Shiite areas in Baghdad.
They killed 65 and wounded more than 200, demonstrating in stark terms how dangerously divided Iraq remains more than a year after American troops withdrew
-
-
Permalink Reply by P.A. on
-
Just shows what great job Bush, Cheney and others did to stabilize the country.
-
-
Permalink Reply by exedir on
-
The question is not the past, it is the future, and not a good one, to be sure.
As to American involvement well, we are up to our necks, which includes, the American pocket book, and American armed forces to draw a line in the sand, so to speak.
And yes, it is complicated, and a challenge to the Obama administration. The idea of a diplomatic reboot has turned out to be a boot alright, a showing of the heel of your shoe that in the Middle East is an insult and form of derision as delay, obfuscation and just ignoring the seriously worded letters and financial sanctions applied against regimes like Syria are just passed on the harm to the people and otherwise tossed out as examples of the them's against the us's.
It is not longer a matter of peace, as Libya showed in 2011, it is military action that makes the difference. Question is whose military and how is it used.
To take on Syria with air strikes, or, boots on the ground, the ramifications are great in that Syria is a 'black hole' of interests for so many others, starting with Iran, Israel, Lebanon with Iraq, Jordan and Turkey as ancillary dealing with refugees, bases of operation and safe havens for those, like the Kurds, who could take advantage of the chaos in the region to advance their own ambitions.
An attack on Syria, has been stated as an attack on Iran by Iranians due to their need to have a compliant conduit to arm Hamas and Hezbollah, Iranian supported proxies, in dealing with the Arab Islamist in Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank.
No matter what is done, it is all a risk, a great risk that events could and would get much, much worse, and draw in America to sustain the 'unbreakable' alliance with Israel.
-
-
-
Bush was the first American to preemptively invade a peaceful sovereign nation that was no threat to the United States. Remember when aggressors like Hitler and Stalin were the bad guys? Why do NeoCons want to kill and maim American troops for a cause that is no threat to the U.S.? Why do the NeoCons have no intention of helping the soldiers or their families when they return broken, injured, and maimed? Why are people but a commodity to the wannabe 1%?
-
-
-
Well, not really, say the War of 1812, the War of Mexican Secession, most of the Indian Wars, and of course, some would say the Civil War, but be that as it may, the use of the military has been and will continue to be one of the tools to protect and extend the country's influence.
And yes, that means treasure and blood, in foreign places, far away from where we live using their shield to protect us and promote our interests.
Now as to the cause of using armed force, we live in a troubling and threat fill world, and yes, there are those that wish us harm and would do so, given the opportunity. Additionally, we have friends and allies that can and do experience threats and subject to aggression which we have pledged our support and action.
And yes, we have been the bad guys, to the British, to the Mexicans, to the South and to Native Americans, it is the nature of armed conflict, and who is the enemy.
As to what we do with those that have fought our conflicts? We give them discharges, medals, benefits and medical care to deal with result of battle and the infirmity of age and days of commemoration; Memorial Day and Veterans' Day. A grateful nation, certainly.
Now as to why all of this happen, war and conflict is not an aberration of the human condition it is apart of it since the species started. As to the result of war and conflict, it is always a human tragedy, and serves the purposes of those that bring it about, war and conflict. The NeoCons did not invent war and conflict, nor did they create the armed forces of the United States, what they did do was impose their concerns and ambitions on the government and people. As to what happened, conditional victory with consequences, the usual result of any war and conflict. What was done was not to win the war, it was to fail the peace, something we have a history on since Jamestown and the Pilgrims showed up over four hundred years ago.
-
-
-
Right or wrong, most Indian wars were in retaliation of Indian atrocities, the Spanish American War with the destruction of the USS Maine and Yellow Journalism (like Fox News), and in the Mexican-American War the US the US declared war on Mexico on May 13, 1846, seven days after Mexican troops attacked America troops. We were not the first to attack.
The Civil War... the secessionist traitors because they started the brawl at fort sumter.
They just weren't called NeoCons back then...
-
-
Permalink Reply by Ioruach on
-
You are correct, exedir, it certainly is the future, and we are up to our necks. The Minneapolis StarTribune this morning included a brief article based on an analysis by the Associated Press of certain federal records that it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
In this analysis, the A.P. looked at payments to veterans and survivors of America’s (numerous) wars. The resulting report shows that payments amounted to about $40 billion per year and are rising rapidly. It is expected that such payments for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will extend well into the next century. Yes, at least 100 years from now.
To emphasize how long government payments can extend, the report revealed that we are still paying benefits to 10 living recipients based on the Spanish-American War costing about $50,000 per year, and two children of veterans of the civil War, each for $876. per year.
Care for our veterans is an obligation that we absolutely must live up to. But the cost of all these wars, most of which I believe were foolish and unnecessary, with the Iraq and Vietnam Wars right at the top of that list, will greatly harm our ability to carry out government’s many other important functions. Yes. Bush, Cheney and several others associated with them should be in the slammer. -
-
-
Maybe "Care for our veterans is an obligation that we absolutely must live up to", as Obama pointed out when trying to avoid the "Sequester". Anyone want to comment about all the "benefits" our veterans are losing in order protect GOP tax breaks for the wealthiest?
-
© 2024 Created by Aggie.
Powered by
