Aurora atrocity more important than Syrian slaughter?

[the Weird Liberal]

The Aurora shooting was truly horrific (so much so that I'll leave gun control for a later video), but there are much fewer casualties than in Syria right now.
We cannot turn our back on the world when our brothers and sisters in Syria beg us to end the bloodshed.
Liberals like me were right on Libya, and I am right on Syria.
Any American conservatives watching, I urge you for support in this.
Don't let Basher Assad get away with murder.
(I am FULLY AWARE that not all of the rebels in Syria are saints, but they've gotta be better than that little serial killer in power).
Thanks for watching and hopefully doing something to speak out on this...
We as Americans are truly arrogant sometimes... I disagree with much of Christianity, but Jesus did tell us to help our brothers and neighbors when they're in trouble...
I don't like to over-simplify, but Assad = James Holmes, except that Holmes harmed far fewer people.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

1. Disgusting.

Are you really using tragic events that occurred just this morning to justify your fetish for invading Syria?

[the Weird Liberal]

2. You know what's REALLY disgusting?

That you don't seem to care about all the people being slaughtered in Syria.
Yes I am doing as you said, sort of, I'm saying we should help overthrow the Assad regime, not necessarily an Iraq-style invasion, just help the Free Syria Army liberate their nation.
I'm not using it to justify gun control like some others are doing.
Yes, I'm horrified at the tragedy in Aurora, but as Axelrod said, no good disaster or whatever should go to waste.
This is how the GOP wins. They use events like this to their advantage.
Get off your high horse and do the same, or prepare for another 2010.

[Wait Wut]

5. Send us your address...

...when you find out where you'll be stationed. We'll send a postcard.

There are better ways for you to make your point. I think you know that.

[the Weird Liberal]

10. Better ways to make a point?

You guys just sit there and blast me for standing up for the Syrian people. What should I say that makes you understand that these are fellow human beings whose lives are just as valuable as ours?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

11. Don't say anything.

Enlist. Or go join the rebels. Don't ask me or my family members to risk their lives for your shallow ideals.

[the Weird Liberal]

16. Am I asking you to?

Geez, I'm asking the US to send people who want to end the horrors in Syria to go there and end them.
I know you don't care. It's sad that our conservative military seems to do more to stop international injustice than the "tolerant and compassionate" liberals in this nation nowadays. Don't tell me to shut up, you can ask me to serve, but at the end of the day when Syria is free of Assad you'll go: but it was still bad to intervene!!!
But I don't care, 'cuz at the end of the day I'm right and you're on the wrong side of history.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Why don't you go?

Post your APO and a list of things you would like and i'll be happy to send you a care package.

[the Weird Liberal]

63. Why don't I go?

Why don't you care about the Syrian people? Are you that selfish?

[AtheistCrusader]

70. I do care about them.

Precisely why I don't want to send our military in there. The united states military is by far the greatest implement for killing people and breaking things that the human race has ever devised.

You want to save the Syrian people? Better option: Send in the UN with peacekeepers, because we don't do that shit. We drop bombs on everything that moves. Later we apologize for all the bits of children on the walls.

[sabrina 1]

83. If I thought that starting an Iraq-style war in Syria would help the Syrian people, and I cared

about them as much as you say you do, I would be there to help make it happen.

But like all war-mongering, the talkers are never the ones to go and risk their lives. They will support bombs reigning down on innocent civilians, so long as it doesn't happen in their neighborhood, and they will support the troops going into those hell-holes so long as they are not one of the troops.

No one is stopping you from from doing what you think is right. We do not agree that invading Syria is the right thing to do for the people of that country. No one in the world, after watching the tragedy of Iraq, believes that our invasions do anything but more harm to those people.

I care enough about the Syrian people to oppose any attempt to give them the kind of 'help' we gave the Iraqi people.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

7. So did you enlist yet?

Or are you still just advocating sending others into harms way? Easy to be a warmonger from the comfort of a middle class suburb.

[the Weird Liberal]

12. A warmonger?

The war is already there, my friend. I just want us to end it. Sure, I'd volunteer to help stop it if my country calls on me to.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Volunteer if there is a draft?

How convenient for you.

[the Weird Liberal]

64. Again...

if people ask me to go (like if I'm asked by a military recruiter) I'd volunteer.
I know you wouldn't though, you're too busy doing... what?

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Being practical.

I have no desire to go into someone else's country and kill innocent civilians.

No matter how good your intentions, that is what your plan will come to.

Always has, always will.

[uppityperson]

79. I'm a military recruiter. Will you go?

Let's see if you do what you say you will or if you are too busy doing...what?

[sabrina 1]

19. Whoever is arming the Syrian opposition is responsible for much of the bloodshed in

that country. Do you know who is doing that?

As for Libya, that country is destroyed. We were wrong on Libya unless you wanted to see the carnage that occurred, the medieval war crimes committed, the torture and murder of Sub-Saharan Africans that is ongoing. But hey, the Western Nations got control of the oil, as they did in Iraq, so all is well I suppose .

[the Weird Liberal]

22. Gadhafi was slaughtering his own people

and we stopped it.
End of discussion.
If there's something wrong with that, lemme know.

[sabrina 1]

41. Actually, no, the lies about thousands dead were totally debunked, by the individual who

testified to the UN himself btw. And Libyans had one of the highest living standards in Africa. Now their country is destroyed. We killed, NATO bombs killed more people in Libya than Gadaffi ever did. Children, have you seen the photos, old people, disabled people, who btw, under Gadaffi received so much help from the government, all of which is now gone.

And when NATO secured the oil fields after the murder of Gadaffi, they left the civilians to fend for themselves. Have you seen the photos of the mass slaughters perpetrated by the 'rebels' which apparently NATO had no interest in despite using 'protecting civilians' as their excuse for intervening in a country they had no right to intervene in?

But hey, you want to start wars against tyrants? Why stop with Syria? Do you know who some of our ALLIES are, speaking of tyrants? How about we go to Uzbekistan and remove that brutal dictator eg? But we can't, he's our ally. How about the Sudan, do you care about the people there?

What about the Ivory Coast? Or Bahrain? The world is full of dictators, many supported and kept in power by US money. Why single out Syria?

And who is sending arms to Syria? Do you know?

How come we can't win in Afghanistan 11 years later? Are you prepared to go to war yourself, or would you rather send others to die in these oil wars?

The American people are not interested in fighting other people's wars anymore, and no, we do not fall for the propaganda anymore than we fell for it with Iraq.

Posts like this get Liberals a bad name.

[the Weird Liberal]

47. Conspiracy theories...

I bet you believe in the New World Order too.
I want to get rid of what is right now one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world.
As for Gadhafi, even if he didn't kill thousands of his own people (which, btw, he did) he threatened to, so we had to stop that.
The people there begged for our invasion, I can show you videos and pictures if you want (except you'll "Debunk" them as propaganda or lies or something).
We can't get rid of every evil regime right now, but we can do something about this one.
America wants more wars, that's why pro-war presidents are always in power.
Ooh, btw, I have a similar military philosophy that JFK, FDR, etc. adhered to.
Burying our heads in the sand doesn't work. At least conservatives get that.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. HE THREATENED TO!

So we bombed his house, and his cities, killed children, broke a nation...

Well you know, he threatened to do something bad...

[the Weird Liberal]

74. "HE THREATENED TO!"

I meant to just log off rather than continue to waste my time here, but your last idiotic comment was just beggin' for a response...
"He threatened to." Hahahahaha, like a funny joke, right? Why should we take him seriously...
God, people like you are why we lost in 2010. America knows some of your military ideas are just stupid/ignorant (why we lost in 2002 and 2004 among other years). Seeya...

[AtheistCrusader]

78. If you can ever tell me EXACTLY how many innocent children we killed in Iraq

I'll trust you as having the insight into foreign situations to make a credible judgment call.

[sabrina 1]

80. Testimony before the UN is a CT now?

Did you see the interview with the source of the 'Gadaffi killed thousands' testimony that helped get NATO involved in Libya? The man himself admitted he was WRONG. Do you know what a CT theory is? HIS CLAIM of thousands being killed by Gadaffi, THAT he admits, was the real CT. And unfortunately he got thousands killed before he withdrew that lie. Too late.

I almost feel bad for you. Your posts are becoming less and less coherent.

Enjoy yourself pushing for another Neo-con war in the ME on a Democratic board. I've had enough of this right wing warmongering for one day.

[leveymg]

20. "Help the FSA to liberate their nation" entails killing a group of Syrians to advance the religious

hatreds of another. Unfortunately, the conflict in Syria is essentially a Shi'ia-Sunni muslim holy war that's been fought for generations. There are no relatively simple solutions like in Libya. Further military escalation and intervention will lead to more suffering, and ultimately a genocide of the minority Allawites who make up most of the Ba'ath Party, which is the Assad regime's base of support.

I wish there were simplistic solutions like you seem to imagine.

[the Weird Liberal]

26. It is like Libya

you just don't realize it.
Look, enough with the straw men. I know it's not a "simple/easy fix". But Assad has to go.
Only a fool would continue to let him stay in power.

[leveymg]

34. The two situations aren't really comparable.

Libya's Gadhaffi had no real base of power. He was a charismatic who stayed in power because he had been kept in power by the US after the Libyan King was overthrown during a trip to the UK. A group of Brits wanted to go in with mercenaries and overthrow the junta, but the CIA got wind of it, and quashed the attempted coup. That's all public knowledge. I recall it's in the Wiki.

Gadhaffi stayed in power because he was smart enough to put aside 30% of Libyan oil production for western companies. which he sold at below market with some extremely large kickback schemes involving above-market cost imports, in recent years mostly with Italian and New Europe business partners. His dealings made a lot of people in the West very rich, so they had an interest in keeping the gravy train on track. That much is also widely acknowledged.

For a while he was the patron of many of the world's worst terrorists, some of whom are accused of attacking US targets, but these same terrorists also carried out operations against parties who were on the CIA's shit list, so somehow Gadhaffi survived. The facts are there, but you can draw your own conclusions.

Last year was just a convenient time to get rid of him.

On the other hand, the Assad regime in Syria is basically a clan and religious based affair that is ruled by prominent Alawite families. The Alawite are a Shi'ia sect and are a small minority - 14%, with about 70% of Syria is Sunni Muslim. During the last installment of the Sunni uprising in Syria, during which the Saudis also intervened, some 60,000 or more were killed. The Alawite will continue fighting to hold power - regardless of Assad's personal fate -- like their lives depend upon it.

Their lives depend upon it. Many, many of them will die - you can't just change that particular government, given the local history and conditions, without killing a lot of people along religious lines. Only someone who is very naive and very foolish would believe that there is any other way to remove the Alawite from power in Syria. It's not a video game.

[the Weird Liberal]

38. What's your solution then?

I propose that this nation, and even the world intervenes to stop all this horror.
All people on here can do is bleat about how my facts and logic is inconvenient.
Look, at least you have facts and logic. But I just can't keep silent while Assad kills people. I truly feel guilty and ashamed that we're doing so little to stop what's going on there.

[leveymg]

57. There is no political solution, and more int'l intervention will simply spark wider regional war

Syria is viewed as a proxy in the struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran to fill the vacuum of influence left by the debacle of US failures in Iraq and (to a lesser degree) Afghanistan. Israel has its own interest in regime change in Syria.

But, there are other regional players that are just as (if not more) important to the outcome. Syria was part of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) for many years until the map of the Middle East was redrawn by the British Foreign Office at the end of World War One. The Turks have their own designs, but it is Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states that are funding the opposition and sending in the Jihadists who are carrying out most of the suicide bomb attacks. For them, it's a holy war for control over the Arab world.

Syria is being carved up. The civil war is just part of a larger struggle for power within the region, and neither the US and NATO, or Russia and China will be able to determine that outcome. We have simply made the situation worse by choosing up sides and not doing anything to pressure our "allies" in the region from further fueling the flames of civil and religious war.

[the Weird Liberal]

61. After Libya

I cannot take you guys seriously.
As for the Saudis, they're a tiny little nation dependant on us for their existence.

[leveymg]

76. Libya was the lowest-hanging fruit. It's not a model for peace in the region.

On one level you have curiosity, but too many preconceptions planted by too much television and not enough experience and serious reading to grasp the situation.

My suggestion is don't try to be Walter Cronkite on this subject. eom

[AtheistCrusader]

66. Maybe you should join forces with the neocons champing at the bit to go in there and 'get some'.

[sabrina 1]

43. Libya was a disaster and a major war crime. Please do not try to use that travesty

as an example of anything but a Colonial Oil Grab.

[the Weird Liberal]

48. There is no New World Order

Alex Jones is a crackpot.
People sometimes act out of generosity.
These are simple facts.
And if we really wanted the oil, we could've just stolen it and left Gadhafi in power. But he was gonna let us have it anyways most likely in exchange for sanctions being dropped against him.
Liberals like you who delve into bizarre conspiracy theories give us a bad name.
I've read stuff on this. Some of it is true and makes sense. But the Libyan people begged for our assistance, and thousands were killed, and Gadhafi threatened to kill more. If you really respected the truth, you would acknowledge that.

[sabrina 1]

71. Conspiracy theories? You get your info from Alex Jones and you call me a CT?

The Libyan people did not beg for our assistance, the planted 'rebels' who no one in Libya seemed to know, did that job. The ex-pats, the British secret agents caught on the ground early on in the so-called grass-roots 'uprising'. How embarrassing for the Brits, just as they were caught dressed up as Arabs in Iraq. Same script always with these oil wars.

Gadaffi was not going to deny us the oil. He was going to change the currency to maximize Libya's profits. It was France who was going to be affected the most if he followed through on his plan to do that. And it was France that led the invasion of Libya. Educate yourself and stop reading Alex Jones and whoever you are getting your info from.

All these wars are about resources, they are NOT about people.

[stockholmer]

93. so spot on as usual, keep calling the war-shills out!!

[stockholmer]

92. +1000000000000000000000000

[Confusious]

3. Syria has China and Russia backing them

Anything we do will drag those two countries into it also.

that's probably the reason for most of the inaction.

If you can come up with great ideas for getting them to change their minds, please feel free to write the president.

I for one would rather not get into another cold war. I already lived through part of one.

[the Weird Liberal]

4. China and Russia will back down

They're already destroying their own international credibility by backing the murderous Assad regime, among others. If they do get "dragged into it" our own extremely superior military will destroy them (oh, and they won't risk M.A.D.)
There's not gonna be another Cold War or any standoff like that, we're just too powerful.
It's a unipolar world, and as long as we have that advantage we might as well use it to prevent campaigns of violence and terror when people are BEGGING us to and we ourselves have pledged that the tyrant Assad must go.

[Confusious]

8. Would you back down?

China alone has an army of 350 million. That's the population of the United States. They don't need to match our navy, they have sunburner missiles, which are supersonic, and we have no defense against.

They also have Nuclear Weapons, which are still pointed at us.

Your thinking is nieve.

[the Weird Liberal]

13. Not exactly accurate

They have more people than us, but with a few exceptions their technology is much worse than ours.
Why do you think they haven't tried to re-take Taiwan yet?
They fear our might.
You spelled "naive" wrong btw.

[Confusious]

18. Technology doesn't mean everything

the the Germans had better technology, they could destroy 8 of our tanks for every one of theirs.

We had 60000, they had 6000. We won.

Comminications? They tested satellite killing missiles. They worked.

Sunburner missile? A couple will take out a carrier and it's air wing.

Tanks? the type 99 can withstand hits from a 125 mm cannon. Our tanks use 120mm.

You're "naive."

[the Weird Liberal]

28. Know why we won, actually?

Because we had one technological advantage they didn't have: we could decode their encrypted messages.
I know my history.
If anyone here is naive, it's you.

[Confusious]

37. They still kept us at bay for 5 years

I also don't think the Chinese are so stupid as to not look at history.

That's the topic at hand. The Chinese and the Russians. and the stupidity of trying something when our military is already overstretched. Not that we could do anything anyways, nor would I agree with it.

You're probably a little young to remember the apology we had to issue when china when one of our spy planes was hit by a Chinese jet in international waters.

We're not the "most powerful" and we can't do what we please.

[the Weird Liberal]

39. Of course we're the most powerful

Our military spending=the rest of the world's.
Please explain how we aren't the most powerful.

[Confusious]

52. I thought I had

Money doesn't equal most powerful. During world war 2, we spent 35,000 dollars on each sherman tank. A panzerfaust cost 100 dollars.

For every military system we have, the Chinese probably have something equally as effective, just cheaper.

They've also been modernizing thier army over the past 10 years.

We've gotten locked into a technology=power mindset, and it doesn't.

If you can't see it, then there's no real reason to continue.

You've just eaten up the most powerful bullshit hook, line and sinker.

[the Weird Liberal]

58. So our money we spend on our military doesn't translate into any technological or any other edge?

You're pretty brainwashed.
You probably also believe that Occupy Wall Street is the future, don'tcha?

[Confusious]

73. No I've just had more time to read

More time to study, more time to understand.

What you propose is just plain stupidity.

If we're so powerful, why are we still in Afghanistan, 10 years later?

Why did we have to bribe the insurgents in Iraq to make some sort of peace?



Seriously. Why?

[sabrina 1]

21. So you're for war?

The Syrians are being armed by the West, as the Libyans were. Qatar troops were operating in Libya throughout the so-called 'grass-roots' uprising and are our proxy 'boots on the ground' in our proxy wars for oil. And possibly the CIA and their private army, Blackwater with whatever new name they are now hiding under.

How did you like Iraq? And Afghanistan? If we are so powerful, why were we unable to win either of those two wars in countries that are far less powerful than China and Russia, nor were they armed with Nukes?

You go right ahead and try to start WW111 if you like, some of us are a little less well, 'weird'. The American people want no part of any more wars. Anyone who wants to involve themselves in wars in the ME, let them do it themselves, they don't get to use our troops anymore. Enough have died already thank you.

[the Weird Liberal]

29. Ranting and raving... sigh...

I did not support the Iraq War, I later turned against the Afghan War.
We're not doing well there deliberately so the military can get more money.
Blah blah blah... this is not gonna be World War 3.
You guys were wrong with Libya and you're wrong now.
Americans don't want wars, they want to END them.
That's what I want to do here.
Our troops want to fight... unlike you, they want to end slaughter in Syria.
Enough have died indeed, thank YOU. That's why I want to end Assad's murderous campaign on his own people.

[sabrina 1]

50. And what would be different from Iraq in Syria?

Libya is a tragic disaster. Who do you think you are to decide the fate of people in countries you do not belong in? Talking about arrogance, I've not seen arrogance like this ever on a Democratic board.

The Libyan people did not want Western interference. Much of that country is now under the control of extremists who were kept under control by Gadaffi, an agreement the US had with him.

Our troops want to fight... unlike you, they want to end slaughter in Syria.

Really, none of the troops I know want to fight other people's wars. They have had enough, especially the ones, like my girl-friend's brother, who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan neither of which I, unlike you, ever supported because it was obvious we would never win a war in those countries for one thing and because we have no right to be invading other countries.

So who are these troops you know who can't wait to go get killed in yet another failed war? Are you in the military? Are you going to join? I notice you say what YOU want to do so I'm wondering, will you be there when the war starts?

[the Weird Liberal]

54. How DARE you?

Watch this video if you can:

MY arrogance?
I'm not the one saying that everything we do is bad and that the Libyan people were better off with a brutal dictator.

[sabrina 1]

85. I saw that video when it first began circulating and have asked many times, what is the source

of the video, where and when was it taken, where is the evidence of who those people are? None of those questions were ever answered. So why are you posting an unsourced video making claims no one has ever backed up to my knowledge? I do not react to propaganda until it is proven not to be propaganda. We all remember the 'babies in the ovens' testimony before Congress, used to get the sympathies of the american people for a war in Iraq. The American people are far wiser now than they were then. So don't expect to post unsourced material that is intended to arouse emotions without thinking, and not expect to be asked for PROOF of what you are claiming.

Fyi, I initially supported the Libyan protesters, but then noticed too many odd things raising too many questions about exactly who was behind the so-called 'uprising' and found enough evidence of a French connection going back months before the protests, to withdraw any support for what I knew would end up being a NATO campaign to secure the Oil Fields. Turns out I and many others who came to the same conclusions based on EVIDENCE were correct. That is exactly what happened. Few people in the world believe the Libya 'story'. Anymore than they believed the Iraq 'story'.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

9. You're not a liberal.

You may advocate liberal domestic and financial policies but this whole rant could be taken right off of FreeRepublic. Its neo-con to the core.

SUPERIOR FIREPOWER!!! USA NUMBER 1!!!! KILL EM' ALL!!!

[the Weird Liberal]

14. Ignorance is bliss, ain't it?

I'm not a "neocon"- I don't believe we should liberate every single dictatorship with our military with resources that could better be used at home.
I do, however, think we should use the military to end crimes against humanity and other such problems that many liberals unfortunately seem to think should be "left alone to resolve themselves" or some such crap.

[sabrina 1]

59. What do you think of the million + dead Iraqis? And the torture and occupation of that sovereign

nation? Were those not 'crimes against humanity' perpetrated by the same Western Colonialists you now want to go interfere in yet another ME country?

Laughable. To think you really think the best thing for other people, is US. ASK people in the ME, in any country, or in Africa, what they think of NATO.

'Crimes against humanity' indeed. As in Iraq and Libya and Afghanistan, Pakistan and Vietnam and Central America.

Bring all of our troops home and stop supporting and propping up dictators as we've been doing for decades, and peace around the world is far more likely to occur. Other countries are as capable of settling their own internal disputes as we did when it was necessary. Unless of course you think we are superior to other people.

[the Weird Liberal]

67. Now you have the simple solutions...

I did not support Iraq. And if you think that totally removing our military everywhere overnight will result in world peace, you're deluded. It'll gaurantee worldwide chaos.

[sabrina 1]

77. I didn't say it would result in World Peace, I said it would contribute to less violence if we

stopped arming and propping up dictators, like Karamov in Uzbekistan, or the Bahrain dictatorship as we are doing, or in the past, all the dictators we have supported, armed and financed. If you think removing that support from brutal dictators would have had no effect on world peace, I guess that explains your current desire to rush into yet another deadly war.

I asked, and you failed to answer, what would be different about a US invasion (to help the Syrian people) of Syria, than the US invasion (to help the Iraqi people) of Iraq? How many dead Syrians from the necessary WMDs we would need to fight the Assad regime, are acceptable to you? A million, like Iraq, tens of thousands, like Afghanistan? How many of those innocent people are you willing to sacrifice to get your invasion going?

And you didn't answer my other question either, will be joining the military in order to fight in Syria?

Frankly I'm hopeful that this president is smarter than the last one and will continue to resist the Neo-cons pressure to invade another country on their list in the ME.

[sabrina 1]

24. Well said. Sounds like the old FR support for the Iraq travesty.

And ten years later we still couldn't win those wars. They always forget how hard people will fight to defend their own countries and have totally forgotten the lessons of Vietnam.

[the Weird Liberal]

30. Can't be argued with, can you?

THIS IS NOT IRAQ.
The Syrian people are TRYING to defend themselves from their own government.
They want our HELP.
What do you not understand?

[Chorophyll]

6. No, it is not more important.

That said, the U.S. is not being ruled by a violent dictator, nor are we in the midst of insurrection or civil war. Our government is not massacring us, but we are massacring OURSELVES.

So when 71 people are shot because they chose the wrong movie theater, it's illustrative of the many problems we DO have in the United States (lack of support/intervention for the mentally ill, a fanatical love of firearms, and a National Rifle Association that stuffs the pockets of our elected representatives.) The Aurora shooting IS a political situation, and we should be talking about it here on DU.

[the Weird Liberal]

15. I'm not saying we shouldn't be discussing it

I'm just saying that we prioritize anything bad that happens in America WAY more than anything else that happens anywhere else in the world. We are so arrogant and self-absorbed we ignore other nations problems but demand attention and aid whenevr something unfortunate happens to us.
Have you heard about this? http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/international/19-Jul-2012/gold-rush-and-genocide-in-myanmar Of course you haven't. Neither have I. Kardashian and Tom Cruise are far more important to us than travesties like this.
We need to tone down our own self-importance and take our rightful place as an equal amongst our brothers.

[L0oniX]

17. You can't get rationality from a mound of angry red ants.

[Chorophyll]

86. Excuse me. My response was irrational how, exactly? nt

[Carnage251]

23. Damn, this kid again.

[the Weird Liberal]

32. Yup, me

thank goodness people who share my view are in power.
Why don't people follow your military philosophy? (As in doing the ostrich?)
Cuz it don't work. Burying your head in the sand won't solve the world's problems.

[uppityperson]

81. Are you the kid in the video?

[Lil Missy]

25. It is more important in Aurora

[the Weird Liberal]

33. I bet

The world cares more about Syria though.
People hate us because we're so self-absorbed and don't care about THEIR problems.
That's a point I tried to make in this video.

[JoePhilly]

27. For today, yes.

There has been a horrific event in Colorado. And for at least today, it will be the focus.

And this pisses you off?

[the Weird Liberal]

36. Sorta does, yeah

Tell me, how often do you care about the tragedies that happen in other corners of the world?

[JoePhilly]

44. Regularly ... next quesiton.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

31. The sarcasm and smarminess displayed in the video is sickening

You really should be ashamed of yourself, but that's likely impossible.

[the Weird Liberal]

35. I should be ashamed in myself?

I want to prevent and end the mass slaughter.
You want to pretend it isn't happening.
Who should be ashamed?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

40. "You want to pretend it isn't happening."

Wrong. Never said anything of the kind.

But I have you on tape shitting all over the memory of those in the theater by calling it "arrogant" to be so concerned.

As I said, no shock you wouldn't get it.

[the Weird Liberal]

42. "I have you on tape"

Yup. I'm brave enough to tell the truth, unlike some of the people on here.
I put my face out there, I speak out for what I believe in.
My detractors on here hide behind their DU accounts and spout nonsense and demand that I somehow single-handedly overthrow Assad myself.
It's kinda sad that you guys act like conservatives on this.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

46. It's kinda sad the complete lack of empathy....

....you displayed in the video. Not even a token display of sympathy for the people in Aurora.

But I guess fat, ugly Americans in a theater munching on popcorn are the chickens coming to roost.....or something something.

Very conservative indeed.

[the Weird Liberal]

51. I do care. I care more than you I suspect

You see it on the news, you pretend to be upset, you immediately discuss gun control.
Hypocrisy at it's finest.
On most other issues I'm probably way more liberal than you, btw. But FDR shared my view on this.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

55. Good for you

One thing I can guarantee beyond all doubt is that I'm far less off putting in my manner when consoling and expressing sympathy for people. I'll take that.

[JoePhilly]

45. The weird one seems to be building many straw-men.

Apparently, the weird one thinks we can't be concerned about more than one tragic event at a time.

[the Weird Liberal]

49. I'm not gonna keep repeating myself

I said that we're ALWAYS more concerned about the bad things that happen to us.
ALWAYS. We never care as much about others, not by a long shot.
What's bad about caring about our brothers and sisters?

[JoePhilly]

75. You again seem to pit those against each other.

If my sister dies, that will be my priority.

If my neighbor dies, that will be a priority.

Increase the distance, and my personal engagement MUST reduce. I can not, personally, engage every death. I can not cry the same tears for some one 1000s of miles away as I would for my sister. If I did, I would never stop crying. I'd lack the will to go forward. And so would you.

We don't care about others as much as those closet to us because we CAN'T.

Do you bring every homeless person you meet into your home? If you don't, then using your logic, you don't care enough about others.

Today, Americans are mourning the lose of other Americans in Colorado, and to suggest that focusing on this, and not on some tragic event in some other country is nuts.

[nenagh]

53. Zbigniew Brzezinski was on Morning Joe this morning....

Outlining all the reasons not to send troops into Syria. Watch the video on MSNBC.

[the Weird Liberal]

68. Morning Joe?

I should get my cues from there?

[sabrina 1]

87. No, and since no one said you should get your cues from Morning Joe but rather from a man

who knows what he is talking about when it comes to war and neocons and the ME, why are you claiming they did?

[sabrina 1]

82. Brzezinski never had much tolerance for the Neo-cons and their ME war obsessions.

He called them insane airc. I hope his advice is taken.

[nenagh]

88. He said the USA should not send troops...can't be essentially policemen for all trouble spots..

The troops are exhausted, insufficient$$$.. etc...At least that was my take from it..

Joe and Mika had a meltdown just before Mika's dad went on air...

Thanks sabrina 1

[Scootaloo]

56. How are we to "end the bloodshed"?

By... killing more people, I suppose?



You probably could have made your point without dismissing and belittling the killings in Colorado, though.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

84. You're not going to be an "appeaser"?

That's exactly what you're doing! You aren't helping the Syrians by making cute little Youtube videos in your parents basement.

Stop acting like YOU are doing anything, what you want is OTHER PEOPLE to do something. You haven't enlisted, you have nothing at stake. Put up or shut up.

[Douglas Carpenter]

89. Liberals arguing that the U.S. should give weapons to Syrian rebels underestimate Assad's power

I strongly recommend reading this article in salon.com by Gary Kamiya:

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/13/dont_arm_syrias_rebels/singleton/




snips:

This is not a knee-jerk left-wing response. It has nothing to do with Iraq. Nor does it have anything to do with the proxy war between the U.S. and its allies and Iran and its allies. It is not driven by pacifism or opposition to all war. All U.S. wars are not axiomatically foolish, evil or driven by brutal self-interest (although most of them since World War II have been). The airstrikes on Kosovo and the Libya campaign were justified (although the jury is still out on the latter intervention). If arming the Syrian opposition would result in fewer deaths and a faster transition to a peaceful, open, democratic society, we should arm them.

That analysis has been provided by a number of in-depth reports, most notably a new study by the International Crisis Group, as well as the excellent on-the-ground reporting of Nir Rosen for Al-Jazeera. The bottom line is simple. The war has become a zero-sum game for Assad. If he loses, he dies. But the only way he can lose is if he is abandoned by his crucial external patron, Russia, which is extremely unlikely to happen absent some slaughter so egregious that Moscow feels it has to cut ties with him. Assad has sufficient domestic support to hold on for a long time, and a huge army that is not likely to defect en masse. Under these circumstances, giving arms to the rebels, however much it may make conscience-stricken Western observers feel better, will simply make the civil war much bloodier and its outcome even more chaotic and dangerous.

The key point concerns Assad’s domestic support. Contrary to the widely held belief that most Syrians support the opposition and are opposed to the Assad regime, Syrians are in fact deeply divided. The country’s minorities – the ruling Alawites, Christians and Druze – tend to support the regime, if only because they fear what will follow its downfall. (The grocery on my corner in San Francisco is owned by a Christian Syrian from a village outside Damascus. When I asked him what he thought about what was going on in his country, he said, “It’s not like what you see on TV. Assad is a nice guy. He’s trying to do the right thing.”) As Rosen makes clear, Syria’s ruling Alawite minority is the key to Assad’s survival: Absent an outside invasion, the regime will not fall unless the Alawites turn on it. But the Alawites fear reprisals if the Sunni-dominated opposition, some of whose members have threatened to “exterminate the Alawites,” defeats the Assad regime. The fear of a sectarian war, exacerbated by the murky and incoherent nature of the opposition, means that the minorities are unlikely to join the opposition in large numbers.

...

Our national instinct is to come riding to the rescue. It goes against our character to simply sit on our hands. Our sincere, naive and self-centered belief that America can fix everything, and our equally sincere, naive and self-centered belief that moral outrage justifies intervention, is a powerful tide, pulling us toward getting directly involved in Syria’s civil war.

But in the real world, we cannot always come riding to the rescue. Sometimes, we have no choice but to watch tragedy unfold, because anything we do will create an even bigger tragedy.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/13/dont_arm_syrias_rebels/singleton/

[Iggo]

90. Keeping score on tragedy and/or disaster?

So gross.

[Douglas Carpenter]

91. Military intervention would destabilize Syria -- Brzezinski