Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Attack on Syria coming soon?
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Attack on Syria coming soon?
Tweet Topic Started: Aug 27 2013, 05:35 PM (692 Views)
boilergrad01 Sep 10 2013, 09:11 PM Post #61
Working on the last 5
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#135
Joined:
February 9, 2008
brumdog44
Sep 10 2013, 09:02 PM
HoosierLars
Sep 10 2013, 08:41 AM
brumdog44
Sep 9 2013, 08:27 PM
Will mean that we will have to suck up our pride
4.5 years of Obama will do that to you.
60 plus years of the miltary-industrial complex will do that. Don't act lie unnecessary wars area new thing.
Brum,

Not attacking Syria is a good thing but please do not act like Obama handled this well.
Nothing beats an Astronaut
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Sep 10 2013, 09:14 PM Post #62
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
boilergrad01
Sep 10 2013, 09:11 PM
brumdog44
Sep 10 2013, 09:02 PM
HoosierLars
Sep 10 2013, 08:41 AM
brumdog44
Sep 9 2013, 08:27 PM
Will mean that we will have to suck up our pride
4.5 years of Obama will do that to you.
60 plus years of the miltary-industrial complex will do that. Don't act lie unnecessary wars area new thing.
Brum,

Not attacking Syria is a good thing but please do not act like Obama handled this well.
Please link to anywhere I have said that says differently. Read the thread before accusing me of saying things I didn't say.

My point is valid about the last sixty years in terms of military conflicts. Do you care to argue that Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc., were necessary wars?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Sep 10 2013, 09:39 PM Post #63
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
I listened to Obama's address on the way home tonight. Sit down... I thought he did a pretty good job of making his case, but I'm still not for a military strike.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
boilergrad01 Sep 10 2013, 10:15 PM Post #64
Working on the last 5
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#135
Joined:
February 9, 2008
brumdog44
Sep 10 2013, 09:14 PM
boilergrad01
Sep 10 2013, 09:11 PM
brumdog44
Sep 10 2013, 09:02 PM
HoosierLars
Sep 10 2013, 08:41 AM
brumdog44
Sep 9 2013, 08:27 PM
Will mean that we will have to suck up our pride
4.5 years of Obama will do that to you.
60 plus years of the miltary-industrial complex will do that. Don't act lie unnecessary wars area new thing.
Brum,

Not attacking Syria is a good thing but please do not act like Obama handled this well.
Please link to anywhere I have said that says differently. Read the thread before accusing me of saying things I didn't say.

My point is valid about the last sixty years in terms of military conflicts. Do you care to argue that Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc., were necessary wars?
Brum,

I respect you and in a perfect world sitting down with a beer and talking politics with you would be a positive.

Maybe one year @the BTT we will be able to do that.

Nothing beats an Astronaut
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bobobinc Sep 11 2013, 02:33 PM Post #65
Member Avatar
Scrimshanker
Posts:
8,742
Group:
Members
Member
#73
Joined:
February 6, 2008
I am old school on this stuff......and in the minority I'm sure. But, if it's all true, you can't let a country use chemical weapons without consequences.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Sep 11 2013, 05:40 PM Post #66
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Bobobinc
Sep 11 2013, 02:33 PM
I am old school on this stuff......and in the minority I'm sure. But, if it's all true, you can't let a country use chemical weapons without consequences.
I agree with your sentiment for sure bob. The problem I have is that I can't tell which side is actually the enemy of the United States. That thought certainly complicates it.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Sep 11 2013, 07:22 PM Post #67
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Bobobinc
Sep 11 2013, 02:33 PM
I am old school on this stuff......and in the minority I'm sure. But, if it's all true, you can't let a country use chemical weapons without consequences.
Like napalm? We were still using that in 1991. Would you have been okay with a launched military strike by a super power on us for that?

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/23/world/war-in-the-gulf-weapons-napalm-s-formula-is-simple-but-its-properties-are-lethal.html

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Sep 11 2013, 07:34 PM Post #68
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
Bobobinc
Sep 11 2013, 02:33 PM
I am old school on this stuff......and in the minority I'm sure. But, if it's all true, you can't let a country use chemical weapons without consequences.
how about when genocide is actively going on in a country?

br
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bobobinc Sep 11 2013, 08:47 PM Post #69
Member Avatar
Scrimshanker
Posts:
8,742
Group:
Members
Member
#73
Joined:
February 6, 2008
Mr Gray
Sep 11 2013, 05:40 PM
Bobobinc
Sep 11 2013, 02:33 PM
I am old school on this stuff......and in the minority I'm sure. But, if it's all true, you can't let a country use chemical weapons without consequences.
I agree with your sentiment for sure bob. The problem I have is that I can't tell which side is actually the enemy of the United States. That thought certainly complicates it.
Agree. Hard to tell these days.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bobobinc Sep 11 2013, 08:52 PM Post #70
Member Avatar
Scrimshanker
Posts:
8,742
Group:
Members
Member
#73
Joined:
February 6, 2008
sirbrianwilson
Sep 11 2013, 07:34 PM
Bobobinc
Sep 11 2013, 02:33 PM
I am old school on this stuff......and in the minority I'm sure. But, if it's all true, you can't let a country use chemical weapons without consequences.
how about when genocide is actively going on in a country?

br
We went into the Balkans to stop genocide. Should have went into Rwanda.....

Don't want to start a big fight here, but I think sometimes we should be the world's policeman.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bobobinc Sep 11 2013, 09:10 PM Post #71
Member Avatar
Scrimshanker
Posts:
8,742
Group:
Members
Member
#73
Joined:
February 6, 2008
brumdog44
Sep 11 2013, 07:22 PM
Bobobinc
Sep 11 2013, 02:33 PM
I am old school on this stuff......and in the minority I'm sure. But, if it's all true, you can't let a country use chemical weapons without consequences.
Like napalm? We were still using that in 1991. Would you have been okay with a launched military strike by a super power on us for that?

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/23/world/war-in-the-gulf-weapons-napalm-s-formula-is-simple-but-its-properties-are-lethal.html

My take is that the chemicals in chemical weapons are what cause death. Napalm is made up of chemicals that create the fire that causes death in various ways......the gel can cause some pretty nasty injuries........but I'm not going to sit here and say napalm is just fine.

As for your question, the circumstances surrounding the two events don't make them comparable imo.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Sep 11 2013, 09:27 PM Post #72
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
Which of these events is more justifiable in the Syria incident:

1. Chemical weapons used to kill X amount of people.
2. Napalm used to kill X amount of people.
3. Firearms used to kill X amount of people.
4. Machetes used to kill X amount of people.

br
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Sep 11 2013, 10:21 PM Post #73
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Bobobinc
Sep 11 2013, 09:10 PM
My take is that the chemicals in chemical weapons are what cause death.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Sep 12 2013, 03:52 PM Post #74
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Bobobinc
Sep 11 2013, 09:10 PM
brumdog44
Sep 11 2013, 07:22 PM
Bobobinc
Sep 11 2013, 02:33 PM
I am old school on this stuff......and in the minority I'm sure. But, if it's all true, you can't let a country use chemical weapons without consequences.
Like napalm? We were still using that in 1991. Would you have been okay with a launched military strike by a super power on us for that?

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/23/world/war-in-the-gulf-weapons-napalm-s-formula-is-simple-but-its-properties-are-lethal.html

My take is that the chemicals in chemical weapons are what cause death. Napalm is made up of chemicals that create the fire that causes death in various ways......the gel can cause some pretty nasty injuries........but I'm not going to sit here and say napalm is just fine.

As for your question, the circumstances surrounding the two events don't make them comparable imo.

But your contention was that you can't use chemical weapons without receiving consequences. It just seems to me that is stating that nothing justifies their use. I don't see how napalm could not be consisdered a chemical property since it's flammability and it's adhesive properties cause painful death.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Sep 12 2013, 05:09 PM Post #75
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Sep 12 2013, 03:52 PM
Bobobinc
Sep 11 2013, 09:10 PM
brumdog44
Sep 11 2013, 07:22 PM
Bobobinc
Sep 11 2013, 02:33 PM
I am old school on this stuff......and in the minority I'm sure. But, if it's all true, you can't let a country use chemical weapons without consequences.
Like napalm? We were still using that in 1991. Would you have been okay with a launched military strike by a super power on us for that?

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/23/world/war-in-the-gulf-weapons-napalm-s-formula-is-simple-but-its-properties-are-lethal.html

My take is that the chemicals in chemical weapons are what cause death. Napalm is made up of chemicals that create the fire that causes death in various ways......the gel can cause some pretty nasty injuries........but I'm not going to sit here and say napalm is just fine.

As for your question, the circumstances surrounding the two events don't make them comparable imo.

But your contention was that you can't use chemical weapons without receiving consequences. It just seems to me that is stating that nothing justifies their use. I don't see how napalm could not be consisdered a chemical property since it's flammability and it's adhesive properties cause painful death.
I guess you could make the case that gunpowder is also a chemical
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:54 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy