A Political Irony

[Redfish]

Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds in 1988.

Reagan was president.

are you saying reagan should have invaded?

 

[Redfish]

Just pretend Syria is in Africa, then we can ignore all the killing going on in Syria like we ignore all the killing that goes on in Africa decade after decade,

and not lose any sleep over it.

So you support losing american kids and spending billions in a mid east civil war that poses no threat to the USA?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are liberal chickenhawks enlisting to serve in Obama's Good War in Syria

 

[FJO]

The chemical weapons Assad used on his own people are very likely the courtesy of one Saddam Hussain, the same chemical weapons that were not found in Iraq, for the simple reason that they were shipped over to Syria.

 

[NightFox]

Where are all of the anti-war Democrats now?

Democrats in general aren't anti-war they're just anti-Republican run war.

 

[Redfish]

The chemical weapons Assad used on his own people are very likely the courtesy of one Saddam Hussain, the same chemical weapons that were not found in Iraq, for the simple reason that they were shipped over to Syria.

Don't tell the dem/libs, it will destroy them and their failed mantra that "bush lied".

It is very likely that what you described is exactly what happened.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What strikes me odd is how nobody is launching a major protest against a possible strike against Syria. But then again they went apeshit when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan... wait how does that work again?

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[ClosedCaption]

Did Templar ask "whos the war monger now?"

Admitting that Bush was a war monger?

Watch the backpeddle

 

[hazlnut]

Regardless,

Obama has gotten the U.S. involved into wars which there was no threat to the U.S. without Congressional approval, even to the point of officially notifying Congress that he was ordering troops while he was vacationing in Brazil.

Which two?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What strikes me odd is how nobody is launching a major protest against a possible strike against Syria. But then again they went apeshit when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan... wait how does that work again?

There was over 90% support for invading Afghanistan in 2001.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds in 1988.

Reagan was president.

are you saying reagan should have invaded?

No you imbecile. Where is all the criticism of Reagan by the people who claimed that Saddam using chemical weapons on his own people was why war with Iraq was necessary.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just pretend Syria is in Africa, then we can ignore all the killing going on in Syria like we ignore all the killing that goes on in Africa decade after decade,

and not lose any sleep over it.

So you support losing american kids and spending billions in a mid east civil war that poses no threat to the USA?

You are one illiterate fuck. I oppose going into Syria. That's what I said. jesus learn to read.

 

[Redfish]

Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds in 1988.

Reagan was president.

are you saying reagan should have invaded?

No you imbecile. Where is all the criticism of Reagan by the people who claimed that Saddam using chemical weapons on his own people was why war with Iraq was necessary.

I never called for war on Iraq under Reagan or Bush. Reagan took the correct approach, Bush did not. Both were supported by both parties at the time.

But how does any of that excuse Obama if he decides to attack Syria? You libs are masters at deflection. How about staying on topic? Where are the left wing protesters now when obama is threatening to use the US military against a country in a civil war?

 

[Redfish]

Just pretend Syria is in Africa, then we can ignore all the killing going on in Syria like we ignore all the killing that goes on in Africa decade after decade,

and not lose any sleep over it.

So you support losing american kids and spending billions in a mid east civil war that poses no threat to the USA?

You are one illiterate fuck. I oppose going into Syria. That's what I said. jesus learn to read.

then we agree you arrogant asshole. So what the fuck is your point?

 

[Redfish]

What strikes me odd is how nobody is launching a major protest against a possible strike against Syria. But then again they went apeshit when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan... wait how does that work again?

There was over 90% support for invading Afghanistan in 2001.

were you for it before you were against it? you are all over the place in this thread.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What strikes me odd is how nobody is launching a major protest against a possible strike against Syria. But then again they went apeshit when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan... wait how does that work again?

There was over 90% support for invading Afghanistan in 2001.

Which probably means you supported it, too.

 

[candycorn]

As you are all no doubt aware, in a statement today by John Kerry, it appears that the US is considering going to war with Syria over it's "undeniable" use of chemical weapons against the people. As of now, at least 100,000 people have died at the hands of Bashar al Assad. But I must digress.

It was 10 years ago this past March when President George W. Bush set Operation Shock and Awe into motion against Iraq over suspected ties to al Qaeda, and possible possession of WMD. Not only did he invade, he was razed and accosted for doing it, and he continues to be attacked and criticized for starting that war as well as in Afghanistan to this very day by the left wing.

The irony? After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Republicans were swept in the 2006 mid-term elections. So, if Obama were to order a strike on Syria, one could surmise that the very same political implications would take place, of such would be wide-ranging, including a further loss of credibility on Obama's part, plus devastating losses by Democrats in the 2014 mid-terms. Not only did Obama invade Libya by sea, he attacked Yemen with drones. Now he wants to invade Syria?

It leads me to ask, who is the warmonger in chief now, liberals? Don't you find this to be the least bit ironic? Where are all of the anti-war Democrats now? Is it only okay if Obama does it?

Whatever the case reasoning may be, the political ironies and parallels are striking.

I doubt the Dems would see a bump due to invading Syria with the foul taste of our great Iraqi quagmire/misadventure still fresh in our mouths.

If the President sends troops into Syria, he's a dumbass for doing so. Nothing over there is worth a drop of American blood; that was true for Iraq as it is true for Syria, Lybia, Egypt, etc...