“I couldn't agree more but the fact is that the U.N. has a history of NOT dealing with international problems. I don't disagree with how things should be but with how things ARE. This SHOULD have been handled by the internationally community but the fact is that the international community has failed the Syrian people. And regarding to the U.S. I have yet to see a country that doesn't have it's own domestic issues, but I hardly see that as an excuse for turning a blind eye to genocide and biological warfare. Again, I'm not saying that the plans of the Obama administration are the best option, as retired Marine Corps general Mattis said in a recent interview: "You invade a country, pull down a statue, then say 'now what do we do?". This doesn't mean that the U.S. and the international community shouldn't intervene, it simply means that intervention without a political end-state is pointless and potentially counterproductive. The situation can be handled better than what we are currently seeing and hearing but putting all your faith in an organization with a history like the U.N. is simply overzealous and naive, to say the least.”
judgesue on Sep 3, 2013 at 03:11:32
“Still think US should mind own biz and stay out.
Maybe the Arab League should try to stop all the deaths.
US has no national interest in this terrible war and it is impossible to see who if anyone is good or bad as far as US is concerned.
If UN cannot handle it than Syria's neighbors who have more to gain than US should step in.
If UN and US cannot handle it, then leave it to the Rebels and Assad.
US has alienated the whole world by its aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have had too many pointless ME wars already over the last 10 years and I say we stayout of Syria.
If it is not the UN's biz, then it is therefore not the US's biz.”
“I have no problem with the UN as a concept, I have a problem with the UN as an actual organization. It's simply not effective and has been the cause of more harm than good and Chomsky has yet to produce constructive criticism of any nature regarding the conflict in Syria.”
GuyCybershy on Sep 3, 2013 at 02:46:31
“It is our allies who are funding this war, we could stop it if we really wanted but we don't.”
“Right, and using chemical weapons isn't. This man is a joke. Ever since that Penn & Teller episode I find it hard to take this guy seriously and I don't think anyone with two grains of salt between their ears can take the UN seriously. I still remember the blue helmets here in Croatia and Bosnia who ran prostitution rings and literally stood by and watched as Serbian forces massacred innocent civilians. And now THEY are supposed to stop a conflict with 100k dead and biological warfare. Ridiculous! I have more trust in Obama's smack on the wrist with no political end-state than in the UN. It'll be 3 years before the UN even passes a resolution for the type of conference table that will be used in further discussion on which type of coffee will be used for potential planing of planing for a plan to come up with an angry worded letter to the Assad regime.”
demlover1 on Sep 3, 2013 at 03:35:59
“Yes, Chomsky seems more concerned with the US and other nations trying to make a statement against the use of chemical weapons by a known dictator--Assad--than what Assad has done (using chemical weapons against his own people). The US didn't get UN support when we went into Bosnia--just NATO support--and it was the right thing to do--we helped end a genocide.
This is a complex situation and it is not clear what we should do (since the situation is so volatile)--but, the bad guy is Assad, not the US and not President Obama. And Chomsky is misguided in this situation, just like he usually is with regards to Israel (where he consistently sides with Israel's enemies (which include terrorist groups and/or their sympathizers) and against the only true democracy in the region that protects the rights of women, gays, and other minority groups.”
Nikkinow on Sep 3, 2013 at 02:15:43
“"and I don't think anyone with two grains of salt between their ears can take the UN seriously. I still remember the blue helmets here in Croatia and Bosnia who ran prostitution rings and literally stood by and watched as Serbian forces massacred innocent civilians. And now THEY are supposed to stop a conflict with 100k dead and biological warfare"
....don't forget their allowing cholera epidemic to kill thousands in Haiti after the devastation, knowing that it was UN troops from outside of Haiti who brought in the disease, not requiring them to leave and refusing to provide any remuneration for or support to the families devastated by their inaction......
The UN is becoming a joke!”
judgesue on Sep 3, 2013 at 02:10:00
“Maybe the delay would be most beneficial to countries like the US wherein its people are vs involvement and maybe the concerned parties will handle their own biz, as they should..
If not, the UN exists for international problems and the sarin gas use is a violation of Geneva Convention that the World Court and UN should be dealing with, not the US.
The US has home problems and should not get involved in another even more complicated situation that it has already been involved with.in ME.”
GuyCybershy on Sep 3, 2013 at 02:05:23
“Ok, so let's withdraw from the UN. Who voted for it to be in New York anyway??”
“First of all your, relatives credentials make absolutely no difference here.
Second; The Japanese Imperial Army was far from broken. At the beginning they've numbered 6,095,000 active duty troops, when by 1945 they still had 5,5 million fanatical troops, meaning that not only we're they far from broken, they still had the majority of their ground forces intact. This was the main reason why most of their generals and admirals refused to accept capitulation pleas after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. The only reason why they did end up surrendering is because the Japanese emperor, who was considered a divine figure, ordered the surrender following Nagasaki which almost ended up in a military coup d'état (known as the Kyūjō Incident).
Last but not least; it's simplest arithmetic. The most conservative estimations for a mainland invasion estimated 2-4 million losses just on the American side, not to mention how many Japanese soldiers and civilians would have gotten killed in the pre-planed carpet bombing campaign. And lastly the Russians also got into the Pacific campaign, where they've lost 10,000 KIA and 25,000 WIA just in TWO WEEKS. By any measure, the coalition and Japanese casualties would have dwarfed both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both combined and doubled.”
“Millions of Japanese citizens were armed in order to defend the Japanese mainland along with most of it's imperial army and the estimates of casualties just for the American side for Operation Downfall were 4 million. If you wanna take the moral high ground, try looking at the bombing campaign in Germany and take a wild guess how many casualties could have been made on the Japanese side. Far more than the ones killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you think that those two bombs didn't prevent more death and suffering than you either have never heard of the fanatical Imperial Army nor do you have an understanding of the Japanese people or the entire Pacific campaign for that matter.”
aragornsos on Aug 31, 2013 at 08:55:18
“Actually I grew up immersed in it - my parents were both teachers, my dad minored in history and we probably had 2-3 thousand books on WWI and WWII of which I read most growing up. Yes, the bombing campaigns were brutal, and the several on the US side (Lemay among them) felt they would have been tried as war criminals had we lost. It still doesn't change any of the facts around the use of the bombs tho, or the timeframes when they dropped, or whether they were truly necessary to drop. Nor does it change the facts around the US use of chemical weapons in the years following either. It's an inconvenient truth, and we love so much to take that moral high ground, when we're about the LAST country that has any right to do so.”
“For completely unnecessary reasons? Shortening the most horrific era in human history and preventing the invasion of the Japanese mainland which would have ended up in guerrilla warfare, resulting in millions more killed both American and Japanese (and most likely Russian too since they we're getting ready to get in there as well) and THAT is what you call completely unnecessary? I hope you don't run into an Okinawa or Iwo Jima veteran and tell them how morally wrong it would have been to entangle them into at least 5 more years of fighting. I hope you don't run into them and say how immoral of them for not starting Operation Downfall which would have dwarfed Overlord (D-Day) as an amphibious operation. And yeah, I can still hear the praises about Switzerland not getting involved in stopping genocide on their doorstep. My great grandfather, a Dachau survivor couldn't stop praising Switzerland.”
aragornsos on Aug 30, 2013 at 13:07:43
“The Japanese military was already largely broken and pushing hard to NOT ever engage the US, especially on our terms. The fact is we bombed two civilian areas with nukes, something that NO other nation has ever done. It was not necessary, and I'm not so morally bankrupt to believe that any means justify the end.”
“Americans favoring isolationism. Now there's a big freaking surprise. If I never opened a history book, I probably wouldn't see that one coming. I wonder what's the new red line for the brilliant American people. Perhaps the Canadian PM nukeing Quebec? Is that close enough for you to give a damn?”
aragornsos on Aug 30, 2013 at 11:17:52
“Ya know, I'm really getting sick of all of you who don't understand the difference between non-intervention and isolation.
Isolationism would be... North Korea.
Non-Intervention would be... Switzerland.
Which of those is more respected, more wealthy, and all around a generally nicer nation (to visit, to do business with, etc).
If the Canadian PM nuked Quebec, it would be an equally horrific event that we'd have equally no right in unilaterally doing anything about. ESPECIALLY given the fact that to date, we are the ONLY nation on the face of the earth to use nukes against a civilian population in two locations, for completely unnecessary reasons, and have brought back torture and an number of other questionable actions back to the world stage, we're HARDLY the ones to claim any sort of moral "high ground".”
mburgh on Aug 30, 2013 at 11:09:32
“Not isolationism, but interventions into a conflict the US has not stake in, and has no threat toward the US. Let Syrians handle Syria. We don't need more wars. Aren't two enough?”
Theatrixnyc on Aug 30, 2013 at 11:09:03
“I wonder what's the new red line for the brilliant American people.
So where are you from?”
Richard Bartholomew on Aug 30, 2013 at 11:08:59
“> Americans favoring isolationism.
Americans favoring non-intervention. There's a big difference.”
“This is ridiculous. A nation of laws is supposed to pursue justice not vengeance and shouldn't allow it self to fall to the level of such scum like Hasan. In situations like this we define who we are and I doubt that this is a decision that represents the American people but maybe that's just cause I'm just another warmhearted European liberal who still believes in justice. Hasan should be locked away for life without possibility for parole instead, they're gonna give him exactly what he wants. It's about time that we get rid of this archaic approach and start behaving like the human beings that we claim to be.”
“I'm pretty sure that this is only politically controversial not scientifically...”
Elsinor on Aug 16, 2013 at 09:48:09
“The opposite conclusion would have actually been somewhat more surprising. Polls and studies consistently show that atheists on average have more education and higher incomes than the general population. Both of these factors are beyond doubt correlated with performance on tests that measure IQ and analytic ability. (You can debate the reasons for this, but that is another issue) Therefore, you would expect atheists on average to have higher IQs, etc.”
“Oh really, the simpleminded masses that overwhelmingly supported a war for which they didn't pay for in neither taxes nor life now grow tired of hearing about it on the news? Oh what a surprise, I didn't see that one coming. Yeah, let's just pull out of there as quick as possible, that should fix the problem, just like it did in Iraq. It didn't help stop the killing but it helps regular people to ignore the real problems of the world a little bit better.”
“Why are you listing pastors and muslim leaders as "Most Inspiring LGBT Religious Leaders", religion has been nothing but an excuse for hatred and discrimination and these cherry pickers aren't gonna change that.”
“Yeah nice way to distort history. Croatia never had a significant Jewish population and the Genocide on the Serbs committed in WW2 was done by a puppet regime under complete control of the Italians and Germans. The other two "genocides" I'm not so sure what exactly you're talking about. Perhaps you're one of those who would classify a War of Independence as genocide in which you would be right, it starter as the genocide of CROATS not Serbs. Go take a walk in down town Vukovar and then talk about genocide. The reality is that Croatia today has as much in common with the puppet regime as Germany has with the Third Reich or France with the Vichy Republic and I'm saying this as a great grand son of a Dachau survivor. And from an economic standpoint, you would be hard pressed to find a single country in the region that has made as much progress as Croatia which is why each year thousands of foreign workers from neighboring countries like Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia etc. come into Croatia over the tourist season to earn some money. Croatia is far from perfect and I'll be the first one to criticize and scrutinize our flaws both social and economic but your criticism and skepticism is simply groundless. The summer floods in Germany will have a greater impact on the 507 million EU population than the tiny republic of Croatia.”
“Yeah those were stopped by the Croatian Army in 1995 by liberating the country from genocidal maniacs and sending them back where they came from. Fast forward 2 decades later, all of the countries of former Yugoslavia have normalized relations and now 2 of them (Slovenia and Croatia) are both NATO and EU members.”