Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Can Obama win?

MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 11:30:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So recently there's been all of this hype over Syria. I'm for, and most people who are Con normally grossly misrepresent the proposed resolution. It's either:
a) WWIII Or maybe:
b) Bombing everything. Or maybe:
c) Invasion. Or maybe:
d) Choosing a side in the civil war.

It's really not, it's a surgical missile strike. No more, no less.
Another one I heard is:
"So, when they were just getting killed with bullets it was OK, but now chemical weapons are a no, no!?"

If Obama intervened then, everyone would get in uproar due to his promise to stay out of the Middle East as much as possible. But no the line's been crossed, so what do people do. Do they say:
"Well done, you kept your promise as much as possible, but one has to intervene when over 300 children are slaughtered by sarin gas. We understand the moral and legal (violation of the Geneva convention) need for this."

No, it seems to be:
"Fool! Moron! Down with Obama! He's the anti-Christ! You promised to not intervene with this kind of slaughter!"

So, my question is:
Whatever he does, can Obama actually win the people's confidence? Because at the moment, anything he does gets heavily criticised.

Discuss!

(Sorry about that, needed to vent :P)
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 3:34:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Obama made a politically smart choice by passing it down to congress. Makes him seem like a champion of the people, while what it really does is just put all the responsibility on congressmen.

I believe that people have become isolationist and pacifist, which is not a good thing.

I believe that the current political apathy in society causes idiocy, like the situation in syria. People watch 5 minutes of news and think they know everything about how evil obama and the dirty conservatives are, and how we are evil imperialist USA.

There is nothing wrong with the USA policing the world at the moment, we are best fit to do so.

If we would have had the mentality we had now during the cold war, and some idiots did (why don't we let some other nations stop the USSR from taking over asia and europe?), then the world would be a very different place today. I think America has lost a lot of what makes it great, now most Americans are apologist pvssies.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2013 2:42:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 11:30:32 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
So recently there's been all of this hype over Syria. I'm for, and most people who are Con normally grossly misrepresent the proposed resolution. It's either:
a) WWIII Or maybe:
b) Bombing everything. Or maybe:
c) Invasion. Or maybe:
d) Choosing a side in the civil war.

It's really not, it's a surgical missile strike. No more, no less.
Another one I heard is:
"So, when they were just getting killed with bullets it was OK, but now chemical weapons are a no, no!?"

If Obama intervened then, everyone would get in uproar due to his promise to stay out of the Middle East as much as possible. But no the line's been crossed, so what do people do. Do they say:
"Well done, you kept your promise as much as possible, but one has to intervene when over 300 children are slaughtered by sarin gas. We understand the moral and legal (violation of the Geneva convention) need for this."

No, it seems to be:
"Fool! Moron! Down with Obama! He's the anti-Christ! You promised to not intervene with this kind of slaughter!"

So, my question is:
Whatever he does, can Obama actually win the people's confidence? Because at the moment, anything he does gets heavily criticised.

Discuss!


(Sorry about that, needed to vent :P)

I am not at all an Obama fan, but short-term there is no way he can make everyone happy. Some people are going to disagree with whatever he decides to do. I think what is important, and what a POTUS should be concerned with, is the long-term risk/benefit of his decision, and how it affects our national security. He has information that we don't have right now and has the ability to talk to other foreign leaders, and get their input. He should do what's right, not what's popular.

Personally, based on what we know, I'm inclined to think that if retaliatory action were so important, and his case against the Syrian government so water-tight, an immediate response would have been warranted. Waiting weeks for congress to weigh in is kind of like punishing a child now for hitting his sister a month ago.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2013 5:16:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 11:30:32 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
"So, when they were just getting killed with bullets it was OK, but now chemical weapons are a no, no!?"

This. There's no difference in killing somebody with an AK-47 or sarin gas. In fact, I'd contend that sarin gas is more humane.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 10:24:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/8/2013 5:16:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/7/2013 11:30:32 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
"So, when they were just getting killed with bullets it was OK, but now chemical weapons are a no, no!?"

This. There's no difference in killing somebody with an AK-47 or sarin gas. In fact, I'd contend that sarin gas is more humane.

I don't think so. A single shot to the head is almost instantaneous. Poison can be slow, terrifying and very painful. Of course, a swarm of bullets isn't much better, but it's all relative.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 4:47:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 10:24:16 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 9/8/2013 5:16:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/7/2013 11:30:32 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
"So, when they were just getting killed with bullets it was OK, but now chemical weapons are a no, no!?"

This. There's no difference in killing somebody with an AK-47 or sarin gas. In fact, I'd contend that sarin gas is more humane.

I don't think so. A single shot to the head is almost instantaneous. Poison can be slow, terrifying and very painful. Of course, a swarm of bullets isn't much better, but it's all relative.

Very rarely are people actually shot in the head when not in an execution; usually, they are shot multiple times in other places. As for an execution, you should watch some of the ones that Al Qaeda has online- they are rarely "one shot to the head humane."
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 9:39:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 4:47:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/9/2013 10:24:16 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 9/8/2013 5:16:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/7/2013 11:30:32 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
"So, when they were just getting killed with bullets it was OK, but now chemical weapons are a no, no!?"

This. There's no difference in killing somebody with an AK-47 or sarin gas. In fact, I'd contend that sarin gas is more humane.

I don't think so. A single shot to the head is almost instantaneous. Poison can be slow, terrifying and very painful. Of course, a swarm of bullets isn't much better, but it's all relative.

Very rarely are people actually shot in the head when not in an execution; usually, they are shot multiple times in other places. As for an execution, you should watch some of the ones that Al Qaeda has online- they are rarely "one shot to the head humane."

It's probably still better than suffocating and feeling your internal organs being eaten from the inside out.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 10:25:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 9:39:48 PM, drhead wrote:
At 9/9/2013 4:47:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/9/2013 10:24:16 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 9/8/2013 5:16:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/7/2013 11:30:32 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
"So, when they were just getting killed with bullets it was OK, but now chemical weapons are a no, no!?"

This. There's no difference in killing somebody with an AK-47 or sarin gas. In fact, I'd contend that sarin gas is more humane.

I don't think so. A single shot to the head is almost instantaneous. Poison can be slow, terrifying and very painful. Of course, a swarm of bullets isn't much better, but it's all relative.

Very rarely are people actually shot in the head when not in an execution; usually, they are shot multiple times in other places. As for an execution, you should watch some of the ones that Al Qaeda has online- they are rarely "one shot to the head humane."

It's probably still better than suffocating and feeling your internal organs being eaten from the inside out.

That's not how sarin works. It binds to cholintesterase and thus doesn't allow for the uptake of acetylcholine, thus leading to constant nerve excitation. Essentially, all your essential organs paralyze and contract. It's not too pleasant, but it's probably also quite quick- much quicker than dying of the slow blood loss, pain, and shock associated with bullet wounds.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 11:28:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 10:25:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/9/2013 9:39:48 PM, drhead wrote:
At 9/9/2013 4:47:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/9/2013 10:24:16 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 9/8/2013 5:16:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/7/2013 11:30:32 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
"So, when they were just getting killed with bullets it was OK, but now chemical weapons are a no, no!?"

This. There's no difference in killing somebody with an AK-47 or sarin gas. In fact, I'd contend that sarin gas is more humane.

I don't think so. A single shot to the head is almost instantaneous. Poison can be slow, terrifying and very painful. Of course, a swarm of bullets isn't much better, but it's all relative.

Very rarely are people actually shot in the head when not in an execution; usually, they are shot multiple times in other places. As for an execution, you should watch some of the ones that Al Qaeda has online- they are rarely "one shot to the head humane."

It's probably still better than suffocating and feeling your internal organs being eaten from the inside out.

That's not how sarin works. It binds to cholintesterase and thus doesn't allow for the uptake of acetylcholine, thus leading to constant nerve excitation. Essentially, all your essential organs paralyze and contract. It's not too pleasant, but it's probably also quite quick- much quicker than dying of the slow blood loss, pain, and shock associated with bullet wounds.

Bullet wounds still at least let you know what to expect.

You also haven't acknowledged the means of deployment - a sarin gas weapon can kill many people over a wide area, while bullets can't as easily do the same thing. In addition, there is no cleanup as there would be for bombs.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 8:21:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 11:28:33 PM, drhead wrote:
At 9/9/2013 10:25:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/9/2013 9:39:48 PM, drhead wrote:
At 9/9/2013 4:47:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/9/2013 10:24:16 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 9/8/2013 5:16:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/7/2013 11:30:32 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
"So, when they were just getting killed with bullets it was OK, but now chemical weapons are a no, no!?"

This. There's no difference in killing somebody with an AK-47 or sarin gas. In fact, I'd contend that sarin gas is more humane.

I don't think so. A single shot to the head is almost instantaneous. Poison can be slow, terrifying and very painful. Of course, a swarm of bullets isn't much better, but it's all relative.

Very rarely are people actually shot in the head when not in an execution; usually, they are shot multiple times in other places. As for an execution, you should watch some of the ones that Al Qaeda has online- they are rarely "one shot to the head humane."

It's probably still better than suffocating and feeling your internal organs being eaten from the inside out.

That's not how sarin works. It binds to cholintesterase and thus doesn't allow for the uptake of acetylcholine, thus leading to constant nerve excitation. Essentially, all your essential organs paralyze and contract. It's not too pleasant, but it's probably also quite quick- much quicker than dying of the slow blood loss, pain, and shock associated with bullet wounds.

Bullet wounds still at least let you know what to expect.

So? By that logic, torture is justified as long as you have all your torture equipment fully in sight of the victim.

You also haven't acknowledged the means of deployment - a sarin gas weapon can kill many people over a wide area, while bullets can't as easily do the same thing.

Yes, just like guys with AKs and carpet bombers can kill people over a wide area, also. The means are different, but ultimately, there will be the same amount of people dead.

In addition, there is no cleanup as there would be for bombs.

Wut? Clean up of bodies, bro?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 10:04:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 8:21:34 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/9/2013 11:28:33 PM, drhead wrote:
At 9/9/2013 10:25:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/9/2013 9:39:48 PM, drhead wrote:
At 9/9/2013 4:47:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/9/2013 10:24:16 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 9/8/2013 5:16:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/7/2013 11:30:32 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
"So, when they were just getting killed with bullets it was OK, but now chemical weapons are a no, no!?"

This. There's no difference in killing somebody with an AK-47 or sarin gas. In fact, I'd contend that sarin gas is more humane.

I don't think so. A single shot to the head is almost instantaneous. Poison can be slow, terrifying and very painful. Of course, a swarm of bullets isn't much better, but it's all relative.

Very rarely are people actually shot in the head when not in an execution; usually, they are shot multiple times in other places. As for an execution, you should watch some of the ones that Al Qaeda has online- they are rarely "one shot to the head humane."

It's probably still better than suffocating and feeling your internal organs being eaten from the inside out.

That's not how sarin works. It binds to cholintesterase and thus doesn't allow for the uptake of acetylcholine, thus leading to constant nerve excitation. Essentially, all your essential organs paralyze and contract. It's not too pleasant, but it's probably also quite quick- much quicker than dying of the slow blood loss, pain, and shock associated with bullet wounds.

Bullet wounds still at least let you know what to expect.

So? By that logic, torture is justified as long as you have all your torture equipment fully in sight of the victim.

When did I say that shooting someone is justified?

You also haven't acknowledged the means of deployment - a sarin gas weapon can kill many people over a wide area, while bullets can't as easily do the same thing.

Yes, just like guys with AKs and carpet bombers can kill people over a wide area, also. The means are different, but ultimately, there will be the same amount of people dead.

In addition, there is no cleanup as there would be for bombs.

Wut? Clean up of bodies, bro?

One causes property damage. The other doesn't. One would directly implicate military involvement (rebels usually don't have bombers), the other would be more ambiguous (as chemical weapons are more generally frowned upon, and one would think a responsible leader would never think of using them, much less against their own civilians).

In addition, the lack of any visible property damage would only make things more unsettling for the civilians. Think of that time where a lake on the equator turned over, releasing loads of CO2 into the air, which resulted in several hundred people dying of asphyxiation. People didn't know what was going on for days. This is the kind of shock that would result from gas attacks. People would know that almost nothing could be done about these gas attacks. If someone tries to shoot you, you can try to shoot back, but you can't poison someone back if you are shelled with poison gas.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 10:37:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
https://www.youtube.com...

Scishow explains it well. I contend that having cramp in every muscle from your toes to your eyes is a worse way to die than being shot - even with a swarm of bullets. Maybe that's just me. :D