02-28-2018, 11:13 PM
(02-28-2018, 09:26 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:The Coast Guard could loose a boat or a plane or a helicopter and members of the Coast Guard. Rescuing people can have costs too.(02-28-2018, 08:26 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Except that:
> but instead of stopping the genocide, the United States has become
> a tool to support the genocide, by having diplomats run around the
> Security Council and pass farcical ceasefire resolutions that
> provide cover for the genocide
> pretty clearly advocates that the US do something different
> instead. It's like the weather forecaster saying, "the Coast Guard
> has said they will not perform rescues during the hurricane,
> instead allowing people to die".
What policy did I "pretty clearly" advocate? "Do something different"
is not a policy.
Your two examples are completely incomparable.
In the Coast Guard case, it's easy -- you advocate more rescues.
But what do you claim that I'm advocating in the case of Syria? I'm
simply stating the result of current policy, but I'm not advocating
anything different.
In fact, I don't have any idea what I would advocate if I could.
In fact again, the subtext of what I've written is that there is no
policy that would work better. There is no policy that can stop
Bashar al-Assad from committing genocide and war crimes, using Sarin
gas, using chlorine gas, bombing schools and hospitals, etc. He's
determined to exterminate as many of the men, women and children of
Ghouta that he can, with the help of war criminals Putin and Khamenei.
So what policy do you claim that I'm advocating in Syria? "Do
something different" is not a policy.
The North Korea situation is the same, but with a twist. There we
have two alternatives -- strike or no strike. I have no idea which
would have a better outcome, so I wouldn't advocate either.
The Coast Guard example is easy because rescuing people has no cost.
But any policy or non-policy in either Syria or North Korea has a high
cost. So the two examples are incomparable.
