Derp.

Ron Paul needs to look up obligations for the U.N. and the security council.

ALSO, he should look up NATO some time. This is nothing more than someone that is concerned about politics and rules, but doesn't give a rats ass about watching a people slaughtered. Nice conscience; for a religous, creationist, with an agenda of his own.

Moving this video to Duckman33's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by blankfist.

>> ^kceaton1:

Derp.
Ron Paul needs to look up obligations for the U.N. and the security council.
ALSO, he should look up NATO some time. This is nothing more than someone that is concerned about politics and rules, but doesn't give a rats ass about watching a people slaughtered. Nice conscience; for a religous, creationist, with an agenda of his own.


Because if your aren't bombing people into the dust, you don't care about people.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^kceaton1:
Derp.
Ron Paul needs to look up obligations for the U.N. and the security council.
ALSO, he should look up NATO some time. This is nothing more than someone that is concerned about politics and rules, but doesn't give a rats ass about watching a people slaughtered. Nice conscience; for a religous, creationist, with an agenda of his own.

Because if your aren't bombing people into the dust, you don't care about people.


Then, what do you suggest? Two people are killing each other, or trying to do so.

One has a gun, the other has an anti-acid tablet and is yelling for help. Do you idly watch or get involved?

Make no mistake, I know people will die.

I'm told the U.S. has a Military Industrial Complex.

>> ^kceaton1:
Then, what do you suggest? Two people are killing each other, or trying to do so.
One has a gun, the other has an anti-acid tablet and is yelling for help. Do you idly watch or get involved?

If anything it's like watching ten people trying to kill each other and deciding to help only one of them.

Why aren't we bombing other countries that are killing civilians?

Should that decision be made by the president or by congress?

This is a moral question. It is akin to the problem of the anvil perched over the head of a unsuspecting by-standard. The question is are you morally responsible for actions that are not your own. Does inaction find you as responsible as the action itself. I find this level of moral responsibility impossible. It assumes you are morally obliged to everyone in the world before yourself. I don't think this can be resolved, and all actions end up being immoral, even seemingly moral ones. And to that end, two people killing each other whom have no prearranged understanding of mutual protection isn't something that is morally obliged to respond with. I am not saying there are no grounds for supporting their defense, just that it isn't justifiably through base line application of my own set of moral aptitudes. Personally, I would get involved if it was my own body on the line for doing so, but I could never support action that put others in that role for me. I would view it as entirely immoral. In addition, I rationally understand that taking sides in a civil war is a very risky proposition. Our history of regime change is piss poor. So with all that said, I think this is a poor choice. I sympathize, if it wasn't for the French support in our own war, we might still be English today...it was because of the medaling I don't support that we exist today. However, I can't let the ends justify the means, and such, can't support this action of the president. I would of advised my congressman to vote against such an action...though such action wasn't needed as we don't really have Representatives when it comes to war.

>> ^kceaton1:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^kceaton1:
Derp.
Ron Paul needs to look up obligations for the U.N. and the security council.
ALSO, he should look up NATO some time. This is nothing more than someone that is concerned about politics and rules, but doesn't give a rats ass about watching a people slaughtered. Nice conscience; for a religous, creationist, with an agenda of his own.

Because if your aren't bombing people into the dust, you don't care about people.

Then, what do you suggest? Two people are killing each other, or trying to do so.
One has a gun, the other has an anti-acid tablet and is yelling for help. Do you idly watch or get involved?
Make no mistake, I know people will die.

Exactly. I think the US invading Iraq for Oil... but failing to step in to the Sudan to save thousand of civilian lives was a travesty.

Republican politician's only want military action if they're personally invested in companies that will make profits from it.

Luckily for Libyan civilians, the country has oil and the civil war is more disruptive than helpful to rich politicians investments.>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^kceaton1:
Then, what do you suggest? Two people are killing each other, or trying to do so.
One has a gun, the other has an anti-acid tablet and is yelling for help. Do you idly watch or get involved?
If anything it's like watching ten people trying to kill each other and deciding to help only one of them.
Why aren't we bombing other countries that are killing civilians?
Should that decision be made by the president or by congress?