Do You Think Obama Will Send Military Forces Into Yemen?

Obama is our leader. I'm focusing on what he's doing as it will impact all of us. This is a discussion about current events and is pertinent to this forum. Circumventing the discussion serves no one and is a sneaky way of getting out of answering the question.

 

Yep. But the question was loaded and deserved nothing less...

 

Yes, and most of them clip teabags to themselves

 

Ex. 1: Did Libya attack us? NO! Did we attack them? YES!
Ex. 2: Did Yemen attack us? NO! Did we attack them? NO!

Let's learn from Ex. 2. and keep it that way.


No, the world isn't a nice place, at least you're right about that. But, what are you going to do, attack all the one who aren't nice?

 

Please explain how this is a loaded question:

"Do you think Obama will send military forces into Yemen for "humanitarian reasons" to keep the innocent people from being slaughtered? Would you agree with such a decision or would you disagree?"

 

So you're saying, let it happen? it's not our business to intervene? Ever?

 

I'm saying that if we're going to unleash the Dogs of War, as it were, against a nation it would be appropriate had we actually been attacked first or to disable an imminent attack.

 

Obviously that wasn't the question that I called 'loaded'.

The question was:

...I called that a 'loaded' question and gave a cryptic response "when x=enough?"

As for the other question:

Sending our military forces into Yemen is highly unlikely. I would almost certainly disapprove of that. I could support limited air-strikes (as it is in Libya) if the country's leaders went nuts and said "All dissidents and rebels, as well as all their families, dogs, goats, mother-in-laws, etc will be executed on site!". That kind of happened in Libya.

 

So, only in defense of our own country then. Never in defense of someone else. I know you said you weren't "somewhat of an isolationist" a while back, but that's what I meant by the comment.

 

Please forgive. I thought you were referring to the question in the OP.

Cryptic, indeed... and still unanswered.

When I refer to military "forces" I don't necessarily mean just "boots on the ground". Our planes, missiles, drones, etc. are all military "forces". The Yemeni president certainly is killing dissidents and rebels, but I haven't received any reports regarding dogs, goats or other animals. If I do, I'll let you know.

 

The difference is the severity. It's much less than what was happening in Libya. In Libya, God-Oftly stated emphatically his intentions to wipe-out all that opposed him. The initial reports indicated that as his troops moved into an area, they wiped out everyone they could. Some people survived by hiding, since God-Oftly's troops were in a hurry to enter the Eastern cities. All indications were of an ongoing massive slaughter. In Yemen, it's an occasional murder via sniper-fire or while in detention... horrible, yes... but it simply doesn't compare to the events in Libya.

 

NOTHING is going to compare exactly to Libya! I'm speaking generally regarding the use of US force for "humanitarian reasons".

 

True, but I wasn't being insincere about the differences. And, I did answer your questions, didn't I? ...except for the one I considered 'loaded'...

 

Well, naturally there are differences. No, you haven't answered my question. You've stated previously that you feel that the U.S. should intervene in countries where its leaders are killing their fellow countrymen. I asked, "So, if a country is killing it's own people, at what number do YOU draw the line and say "no more"?"

That's a simple question, as yet unanswered by you. It's not a loaded question at all since there's not a predetermined answer. Just how many people does a leader have to kill before you think it's OK for the U.S. to intervene? I would really like you to answer this question.

 

I disagree. It's my opinion that the question is 'loaded', and I'm not under any obligation to answer it.

You yourself can't answer the question. You don't believe we should ever intervene, right? That's what makes it a loaded question.

 

You're correct when you say I don't think we should intervene. You've stated previously that we should intervene in countries needing "humanitarian assistance". But, you haven't ever stated the number of people that need to be killed before you would offer aid. I've simply asked for that number. That's not a loaded question. But, if you choose not to answer, well, that's your business.

 

That's what I mean though, you can't answer the question yourself! For you, there is no number that will satisfy the question. Why would you think I'd have an answer myself then?

Hence: Loaded.

 

OK, follow along s_l_o_w_l_y now and I'll try to go over this once again: I don't believe the U.S. should intervene. Simple. No numbers needed. No calculations. No adding machine. Not even an abacus. I've answered the question.

You, on the other hand, believe we should intervene for "humanitarian reasons" (God, how many times do I have to say it?). All I'm asking is how many people do you think need to be killed before the U.S. should intervene? That's an extremely simple question and all I'm asking is for you to provide a number. Please pick a number between "0" and "7 Billion".

 

Once again: You haven't answered the question. The question asked how many people have to be killed before you'd intervene, your answer; "Zero, I would not intervene" does not satisfy the question. I'm not answering your 'simple' question, because it's loaded and inane.

BTW, you don't have to refer to me as God, but the answer to that question is "Once". You've asked it multiple times because you thought I didn't understand the question. IMO, you didn't ask the correct question to start with so the fault is your own.

 

It is no wonder you chose the moniker "IQ Less". How apropos.