Yeah, that is correct and I am in no form denying anyone's right to an opinion. My point here is that the "diversity of opinion" argument being made here defends opinions that are being called out by basically saying "you know what, I am entitled to my opinion". This is the exact opposite of encouraging any form of reasonable debate. You are literally shutting the other person up by pointing out you have a right to an opinion rather than even vaguely attempting to defend the merits of the opinion in question. Imagine this, perhaps extreme scenario:
Person 1: IMO the earth is flat.
Person 2: That's ridiculous, we have pictures of earth, we have satellites orbiting earth, with enough plane tickets you can circle the globe...
Person 1: You know what? I am entitled to my opinion.
Opinions might be subjective but like in the case above they can also be wrong. And they can also be right.
I would tell that person yes people have a right for a judgement but if that judgment is ignoring facts that makes someone foolish. I understand that people use that excuse a lot in the US but Roseanne is referring to her episode where the only controversy is she is a Trump supporter. In that case, she is right to have an opinion (being a Trump supporter) just like anyone else has the right to political freedom. Everyone can disagree or agree but that is the right of democracy.
I would tell that person yes people have a right for a judgement but if that judgment is ignoring facts that makes someone foolish. I understand that people use that excuse a lot in the US but Roseanne is referring to her episode where the only controversy is she is a Trump supporter. In that case, she is right to have an opinion (being a Trump supporter) just like anyone else has the right to political freedom. Everyone can disagree or agree but that is the right of democracy.
I am not sure of how to reply to this, maybe my posts haven't been as clear as I would want. I am in no form or context suggesting she isn't entitled to her opinion as anyone should be.
So Ryan is stepping down..... I'm guessing he knows that either way the midterms go, he'll still be fucked. Good for him for jumping off the runaway trainwreck, bad for him because it shows that again, he's a dickless coward.
Trump's former (?) doorman saying he was told to keep it a secret that Trump either brought women to his place OR that the housekeeper's baby is his. I forgot the specifics.
As far as I know, that statement is a bit exaggerated. Trump, along with May and Macron, launched "precision strikes" on Syrian chemical weapons facilities and command posts. In other words, the attacks were directed at military bases and outposts rather than the inner cities of Damascus/Homs.
According to French authorities, there was indisputable evidence that chemical weapons were used against dozens of civilians. The US isn't alone in this act of deterrence... they are joined by the UK and France, our two closest European allies. Only Germany decided to opt this one out.
With that said, both Britain and France had very good reasons behind their actions. For Macron, he made a statement in May of 2017 that any use of chemical weapons is a "red line for France". Both the UK and France reasoned that appeasing users of chemical weapons would only set the stage for normalization of these kinds of weapons, which is unacceptable. The way I see it, both nations are only keeping their words. The US is no different.
The idea is, if we keep excusing these kinds of chemical attacks on innocent civilians, other nations will become ignorant of its effects and start taking advantage of it. From a scientific perspective, the use of chemical weapons is extremely harmful both to humans and the environment, which is why there are strict rules prohibiting its use. There is a reason why this behavior is practically banned by international law.
And as far as Trump goes, he wants out of Syria. As soon as Middle Eastern nations can regain control of their territories and ensure stability in the region, Trump plans to pull out American forces. So I doubt he is looking for more innocent civilian casualties; otherwise, he might as well just occupy/control the region indefinitely.
There are rescue missions that could be done and helping the citizens evacuate to another country. I find ironic that chemical weapons is a reason to "save people", which harms more citizens with bombing, but not letting refugees in If the US government honestly cared for these citizens there would allow pre-screened refugees in.
In regards to the first half of your statement, it's true that precision strikes on Syria's chemical weapons facilities won't stop innocent people from being killed. As far as I'm concerned, there's no military operation that exists in this world that is capable of that goal, realistically. Everyone's aware of that.
However, if you take a look at May and Macron's speeches, they both stressed that the operation was simply to prevent any use of chemical weapons in the future. It was an act of deterrence to the entire world that chemical weapons are unacceptable and will not be normalized under any circumstances.
The US also stated that it had no intention of interfering with the ongoing civil wars in the region. This precision strike was carried out with the purpose of upholding international law, specifically, the chemical weapons ban. All 3 nations who took part in the recent strikes agree that it is a "red line" that cannot be crossed.
As for the second part of your statement, you are entitled to your own beliefs, so I have no opinion about it.
There are rescue missions that could be done and helping the citizens evacuate to another country. I find ironic that chemical weapons is a reason to "save people", which harms more citizens with bombing, but not letting refugees in If the US government honestly cared for these citizens there would allow pre-screened refugees in.
Yey! WW3!! I don't think it was wise to bomb someone so close to Russia.
There are rescue missions that could be done and helping the citizens evacuate to another country. I find ironic that chemical weapons is a reason to "save people", which harms more citizens with bombing, but not letting refugees in If the US government honestly cared for these citizens there would allow pre-screened refugees in.
First, allowing pre-screened refugees into the US isn't going to solve the problem in Syria. The goal of the military strikes wasn't to "pretend" that the US cares about the whole world (although, I'm not saying that we don't).
The goal was to show the world that chemical weapons, especially on innocent civilians, will not be tolerated.
The cruise missiles were directed and aimed specifically at military research facilities and command posts that store stockpiles of chemical weapons. This was to eliminate chemical weapons in the region where civilians were harmed.
To put it simply, the operation was focused on enforcing the chemical weapons ban, rather than provoking or retaliating against the Syrian government. There's a big difference there.
Also, let me give you an analogy:
If you saw a group of strangers on the streets being mugged by a gang, would you bring the strangers home and shelter them or would you call the police to arrest the gang of criminals?
As you can see here, the problem here is enforcing the law, not trying to "act like we care".
The military strikes were a way of restraining the use of chemical weapons (the gang of criminals in my analogy)... not saving everybody in the world (the strangers being mugged in my analogy).
The latter statement is practically impossible for any country to achieve on its own.
Yey! WW3!! I don't think it was wise to bomb someone so close to Russia.
Second, it doesn't matter who it is. Russia, China, Germany, Canada, or Africa...
Do we want to provoke war? Obviously not. But are we going to be afraid of any users of chemical weapons? No.
This is the definition of the word, "law". Countries around the world have to enforce the chemical weapons ban... otherwise, the meaning of "international law" would be practically worthless and just for show.
It isn't wise to bomb anybody, but what needs to be done, has to be done.
That's the only way of ensuring that laws exist in this world. The policy of "appeasement" failed miserably at the start of WWII, and that is what will happen if everybody keeps turning their heads the other way.
The international community should just do nothing militarily then? Both the US and Russia haven't reported any civilian casualties.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
But it's a bit odd that chemical weapons inspectors from the UN were supposedy being sent to Syria the day after the strike happened. Not sure if that's accurate info though.
In regards to the first half of your statement, it's true that precision strikes on Syria's chemical weapons facilities won't stop innocent people from being killed. As far as I'm concerned, there's no military operation that exists in this world that is capable of that goal, realistically. Everyone's aware of that.
However, if you take a look at May and Macron's speeches, they both stressed that the operation was simply to prevent any use of chemical weapons in the future. It was an act of deterrence to the entire world that chemical weapons are unacceptable and will not be normalized under any circumstances.
The US also stated that it had no intention of interfering with the ongoing civil wars in the region. This precision strike was carried out with the purpose of upholding international law, specifically, the chemical weapons ban. All 3 nations who took part in the recent strikes agree that it is a "red line" that cannot be crossed.
As for the second part of your statement, you are entitled to your own beliefs, so I have no opinion about it.
They can stop al-Assad other ways than bombing chemical weapons facilities. Given the West's history in Middle East, it's a given that they'll attack any area they deem a threat without caring if it really is, or if lives are lost.
Speeches don't mean much if not backed up by them actually trying to keep the damage to the facilities. Dunno why you trust what May and Macron say or what US claims its intentions are, but you seem to trust politicians claiming they "respect" Trump, so it's probably a case of gullibility or selective trust.
No, it's not a belief, it's a fact. Syrians and many citizens of Middle East will tell you how the West have attacked hospitals, homes, and killed innocent people. Hell, you can see it for yourself with how many Western people are against allowing refugees in their countries, and how many people celebrated attacking Middle East. The US will topple government and put even worse people in power as long as it benefits them, even if it hurts the citizens of those countries.
QUOTE="xi0, post: 4769560, member: 10672"]The international community should just do nothing militarily then? Both the US and Russia haven't reported any civilian casualties.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
But it's a bit odd that chemical weapons inspectors from the UN were supposedy being sent to Syria the day after the strike happened. Not sure if that's accurate info though.
--- Double Post Merged, ---
It isn't wise to support a dictator who almost certainly gasses his own citizens [/QUOTE]
To begin with, they can start accepting refugees instead of turning them or most of them away.
In regards to the first half of your statement, it's true that precision strikes on Syria's chemical weapons facilities won't stop innocent people from being killed. As far as I'm concerned, there's no military operation that exists in this world that is capable of that goal, realistically. Everyone's aware of that.
However, if you take a look at May and Macron's speeches, they both stressed that the operation was simply to prevent any use of chemical weapons in the future. It was an act of deterrence to the entire world that chemical weapons are unacceptable and will not be normalized under any circumstances.
The US also stated that it had no intention of interfering with the ongoing civil wars in the region. This precision strike was carried out with the purpose of upholding international law, specifically, the chemical weapons ban. All 3 nations who took part in the recent strikes agree that it is a "red line" that cannot be crossed.
As for the second part of your statement, you are entitled to your own beliefs, so I have no opinion about it.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Two things here. Let me address them separately.
First, allowing pre-screened refugees into the US isn't going to solve the problem in Syria. The goal of the military strikes wasn't to "pretend" that the US cares about the whole world (although, I'm not saying that we don't).
The goal was to show the world that chemical weapons, especially on innocent civilians, will not be tolerated.
The cruise missiles were directed and aimed specifically at military research facilities and command posts that store stockpiles of chemical weapons. This was to eliminate chemical weapons in the region where civilians were harmed.
To put it simply, the operation was focused on enforcing the chemical weapons ban, rather than provoking or retaliating against the Syrian government. There's a big difference there.
Also, let me give you an analogy:
If you saw a group of strangers on the streets being mugged by a gang, would you bring the strangers home and shelter them or would you call the police to arrest the gang of criminals?
As you can see here, the problem here is enforcing the law, not trying to "act like we care".
The military strikes were a way of restraining the use of chemical weapons (the gang of criminals in my analogy)... not saving everybody in the world (the strangers being mugged in my analogy).
The latter statement is practically impossible for any country to achieve on its own.
Second, it doesn't matter who it is. Russia, China, Germany, Canada, or Africa...
Do we want to provoke war? Obviously not. But are we going to be afraid of any users of chemical weapons? No.
This is the definition of the word, "law". Countries around the world have to enforce the chemical weapons ban... otherwise, the meaning of "international law" would be practically worthless and just for show.
It isn't wise to bomb anybody, but what needs to be done, has to be done.
That's the only way of ensuring that laws exist in this world. The policy of "appeasement" failed miserably at the start of WWII, and that is what will happen if everybody keeps turning their heads the other way.
You can't compare chemical weapons to a bunch of thugs. These strikes may have not hit civilians but what about Syria and Russia's retaliation? It's not like they will stop or ignore what happened. Thus, more civilians being involved in a war.
The international community should just do nothing militarily then? Both the US and Russia haven't reported any civilian casualties.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
But it's a bit odd that chemical weapons inspectors from the UN were supposedy being sent to Syria the day after the strike happened. Not sure if that's accurate info though.
--- Double Post Merged, ---
It isn't wise to support a dictator who almost certainly gasses his own citizens
It's not support and to suggest because there was no military action is fallacious. Most counties have given sactions to Syria and other barriers to show their disapproval of chemical weapons.
They can stop al-Assad other ways than bombing chemical weapons facilities. Given the West's history in Middle East, it's a given that they'll attack any area they deem a threat without caring if it really is, or if lives are lost.
Speeches don't mean much if not backed up by them actually trying to keep the damage to the facilities. Dunno why you trust what May and Macron say or what US claims its intentions are, but you seem to trust politicians claiming they "respect" Trump, so it's probably a case of gullibility or selective trust.
What you're referring to above is an entirely different topic in itself. The precision strikes over the last few days wasn't aimed at "stopping al-Assad". If the US and its allies wanted to do that, they would have sent in more than just a little over a hundred missiles. None of the cruise missiles fired were directed towards the capital city nor were they targeting the Syrian government.
Again, retaliation wasn't the intention in this operation. It was simply to deter the use of any chemical weapons in the future, nothing more and nothing less.
And as far as I'm aware, the speeches by May and Macron were backed up by aerial photographs of the damage dealt to the facilities. The evidence shows which sites were targeted and the precise location of the missile strikes.
I don't see any reason for me to assume that May and Macron's words are lies. After all, the military released details of the entire operation and provided evidence of the attack.
Whether I trust politicians or not is obviously going to be highly selective. It would be foolish for me to align myself with any particular politician or political party and blindly believe in every single word that they say.
As for politicians respecting Trump, it's their words and not mine. I just provided proof because I was asked to show a case in which a politician praised/commemorated Trump. I'm an ordinary civilian like you.
The truth is, nobody knows who respects Trump and who doesn't. It's impossible as a spectator. Anybody who claims to have the facts to that is either largely assuming things or simply dismissing everybody's words.
No, it's not a belief, it's a fact. Syrians and many citizens of Middle East will tell you how the West have attacked hospitals, homes, and killed innocent people. Hell, you can see it for yourself with how many Western people are against allowing refugees in their countries, and how many people celebrated attacking Middle East. The US will topple government and put even worse people in power as long as it benefits them, even if it hurts the citizens of those countries.
Though, I'm not defending the Western powers either. Every country has its own flaws and mistakes, but that wasn't really the subject of my discussion to begin with.
You can't compare chemical weapons to a bunch of thugs. These strikes may have not hit civilians but what about Syria and Russia's retaliation? It's not like they will stop or ignore what happened. Thus, more civilians being involved in a war.
The idea is the same. Is providing shelter for every single victim in this world going to solve the problem or is enforcing laws the better solution?
If laws are meaningless and just a bunch of words on a piece of paper, then I'd argue that nobody on this planet is protected.
As for retaliation, France made it clear that it was not trying to provoke Russia or have any sort of confrontation. The US also similarly stated that it did not intend to interfere with Syria's civil war. The precision strikes were a one-time deal and served as a deterrent for any future chemical weapons users. The UK is likely on the same page with the US and France.
If the US government honestly cared for these citizens there would allow pre-screened refugees in. 
