No one is talking about the huge difference between Iraq and Syria.

[Trajan]

First difference:

For one, Syria really does have WMD's.

Right away, Republicans will say, "Oh, but Saddam gassed his own people." But like "twinkle down" and "cutting taxes for billionaires make jobs" and all their other nonsense, this is just something else they screamed so often, it's the only thing they believe.

----------------------------------------------------

Who really gassed the Kurds?

United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."

------------------------------------------------------

Another difference:

Can you imagine "no drama Obama" telling America, "You are with us or with the terrorists" to push an agenda of manipulation and lies? Republicans insist Obama must be stupid because he doesn't rush off in a panic like a chicken with it's head cut off. They think he's paralyzed with fear and stupidity.
The problem is, they aren't used to thoughtful action based on study and intelligence. The Iraq fiasco proves that. And Obama won't put politics above the citizens of this country the way Republicans did when they blocked his administration from investigating BP or when they held millions of unemployed Americans hostage to extend the Bush tax cuts or when they lied America into Iraq in the hopes of making "oil money".

Another difference:

America hadn't been "burned" before the way it was when tricked into Iraq by Bush and the Republicans. I thought Saddam was part of 9/11, most people did. A Zogby poll taken at the time had 90% of soldiers going to Iraq believing it was because of 9/11. Everyone thought we were taking out the guy who attacked us. The sacrificial lamb was the head of the CIA who has said, "Don't look at me. I wasn't me who fabricated intel".
Because of this, which led to the deaths and permanent maiming of tens of thousands of Americans and trillions of dollars lost, Americans simply aren't willing to get involved in another Middle East Conflict.

And Finally:

What ever Obama does, we know from past experience it will be through careful deliberation. It's just the way he works. Republicans can't see that. Correction, Republicans WON'T see that. They refuse to. As sure as they deny evolution, climate change, supply and demand, and the positives of education, they will refuse to see anything this president does as reasonable. Because their disastrous policies and their military fiascoes have been anything but reasonable. Apparently, reason is not something they are familiar with.

I was wondering how the off the chart leftys here were going to spin it....

you should be in a straight jacket, seriously...

 

[Edgetho]

What Obama apologists like Deanie will never admit is that Assad made the decision to gas those people because he didn't believe Barack Obama had the stomach for a real fight. Sorry, Kiddies...but Barry isn't commanding any respect overseas. They see him as weak. So instead of the threat of US retaliation deterring Assad from using gas against civilians that perceived weakness encouraged him to order the WMD's be used. Now Barry's backed into a corner...he either acts and it pulls us closer to a regional conflict we don't want to be in...or he doesn't act and is viewed as totally spineless.

Your reasoning is correct. It just wasn't Assad, it was the American supported terrorists.

We don't know that for certain. It very well could have been the terrorists. We just don't know yet.

Regardless of who did it, Assad or the terrorists..... Which BTW, isn't it curious that the terrorists are getting their asses handed to them and then... WHAM!!! Assad uses gas on them?

Funny stuff there.

Oh, lost my train of thought... But regardless of who did it, there is absolutely NOTHING in this for the United States.

Nothing.

We're going to support the very people who killed 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11/2001? al Qaeda?

How stupid can you get?

Forgot, the Stuttering Clusterfukk is in office.. So there's no limit to the amount of stupid.

 

[toastman]

What Obama apologists like Deanie will never admit is that Assad made the decision to gas those people because he didn't believe Barack Obama had the stomach for a real fight. Sorry, Kiddies...but Barry isn't commanding any respect overseas. They see him as weak. So instead of the threat of US retaliation deterring Assad from using gas against civilians that perceived weakness encouraged him to order the WMD's be used. Now Barry's backed into a corner...he either acts and it pulls us closer to a regional conflict we don't want to be in...or he doesn't act and is viewed as totally spineless.

Your reasoning is correct. It just wasn't Assad, it was the American supported terrorists.

We don't know that for certain. It very well could have been the terrorists. We just don't know yet.

Regardless of who did it, Assad or the terrorists..... Which BTW, isn't it curious that the terrorists are getting their asses handed to them and then... WHAM!!! Assad uses gas on them?

Funny stuff there.

Oh, lost my train of thought... But regardless of who did it, there is absolutely NOTHING in this for the United States.

Nothing.

We're going to support the very people who killed 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11/2001? al Qaeda?

How stupid can you get?

Forgot, the Stuttering Clusterfukk is in office.. So there's no limit to the amount of stupid.

It's not about supporting Al Queda. It's about preventing more potential chemical attacks.

But I agree with you that we don't know if Assad did it or not, and that there really isn't any reason for the U.S to intervene now, unless they are 100% certain that Assad is responsible.
Who knows, maybe the rebels are the ones responsible for the chemical attack in order to blame Assad and get the U.S to intervene to help them topple the Assad regime

 

[toshiro]

"The only difference that matters to you and other lwingers is Obama is a Dem. A Republican does this and you go into orbit. "

I agree with this. To me, Obama picked up the playbook W left behind and ran with it. It vindicates W's Middle East policy. Obama is even more effective at this policy as US liberals and Europe refuse to oppose the 'peace' president.

Having said that, I was hoping he's actually do what he said he'd do. Diplomacy, withdrawal, etc. See how the Middle East responds. They know we have the stick and are willing to use it. Let's give them to the carrot and see what they think. But Obama has chosen the stick over the carrot. While I think it's very effective policy, I was amazed by his audacity in using drones all over the Middle East. He respects national boundaries less than Bush did.

Crimes against humanity are committed by every country. It's okay to use machetes, bombs or AKs. Why don't we do Egypt as well? Sounds like they just did a Tiananmen Square over there. We'll do Syria for the same reason as Libya-- cuz they're easy and convenient.

So let's go for it. We have the power. They won't win. But please, please, please. Don't pretend that there's a difference between Obama and Bush when it comes to Middle East policy.

 

[mamooth]

Reagan supported Saddam in using chemical weapons, and conservatives loved him for it.

Clinton got Iraq's chemical weapons destroyed, and conservatives hated him for it.

Bush lied and claimed Iraq still had chemical weapons, and started a war based on the lie, and conservatives loved him for it.

Obama treads cautiously, and the conservatives hate him for it.

See the pattern? No matter what the era, conservatives place party before country. Their sole guiding principle is "What helps the Republican party?". If it wasn't for relative morals, most conservatives would have no morals at all. They know the more consistent morality of the liberals makes them look bad, hence the hostility. And the way they project their mindless devotion to party on to their moral and intellectual betters. Most conservatives just don't understand that others don't share in their moral leprousy.

 

[toshiro]

Of course Republicans are going to do all those things. It's irrational, but that will be done.

Thing is, Democrats engage in this behavior as well. If you're a Democrat and you're cool with "my way or the highway", then that's fine. But don't think you're practical or "right". From the middle it looks just as messed up as the Republican behavior.

Obama is bombing the snot out the Middle East and eager for more. He's helping to change governments. Violating sovereignity of nations without much thought. I'm cool with all this. But Democrats probably shouldn't be. Obama NOT the peace president. He does NOT use diplomacy effectively. Obama's M.O. is when you go against his wishes, he annihilates you. You can be a Republican, a reporter, a rogue Democrat, an indignant Al Queda leader, a rodeo clown. Basically, he doesn't like to look like a wuss and reacts strongly when those are the stakes.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Right away, Republicans will say, "Oh, but Saddam gassed his own people."

Yeah, in the 80's, when Hussein and Rummy were best buddies

 

[Trajan]

Reagan supported Saddam in using chemical weapons, and conservatives loved him for it.

Clinton got Iraq's chemical weapons destroyed, and conservatives hated him for it.

Bush lied and claimed Iraq still had chemical weapons, and started a war based on the lie, and conservatives loved him for it.

Obama treads cautiously, and the conservatives hate him for it.

See the pattern? No matter what the era, conservatives place party before country. Their sole guiding principle is "What helps the Republican party?". If it wasn't for relative morals, most conservatives would have no morals at all. They know the more consistent morality of the liberals makes them look bad, hence the hostility. And the way they project their mindless devotion to party on to their moral and intellectual betters. Most conservatives just don't understand that others don't share in their moral leprousy.

Reagan supported Saddam in using chemical weapons, and conservatives loved him for it.

Clinton got Iraq's chemical weapons destroyed, and conservatives hated him for it.


links please..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan supported Saddam in using chemical weapons, and conservatives loved him for it.

Clinton got Iraq's chemical weapons destroyed, and conservatives hated him for it.

Bush lied and claimed Iraq still had chemical weapons, and started a war based on the lie, and conservatives loved him for it.

Obama treads cautiously, and the conservatives hate him for it.

See the pattern? No matter what the era, conservatives place party before country. Their sole guiding principle is "What helps the Republican party?". If it wasn't for relative morals, most conservatives would have no morals at all. They know the more consistent morality of the liberals makes them look bad, hence the hostility. And the way they project their mindless devotion to party on to their moral and intellectual betters. Most conservatives just don't understand that others don't share in their moral leprousy.

Yawn

The opinion of an Obama Fluffer who trolls the Internet looking for stories about gun violence and young children is less than worthless

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama: supporting Al Qaeda from Benghazi on.

Did Obama, I should say, did Val Jarrett kill Osama so Obama could takeover the leadership role if AQ

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obama is president?

No?

First difference:

For one, Syria really does have WMD's.

Right away, Republicans will say, "Oh, but Saddam gassed his own people." But like "twinkle down" and "cutting taxes for billionaires make jobs" and all their other nonsense, this is just something else they screamed so often, it's the only thing they believe.

----------------------------------------------------

Who really gassed the Kurds?

United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."

------------------------------------------------------

You really need to watch things besides the drooling channel. The CIA admitted that REagan knew that Saddam planned to use WMDs, and that he didn't do anything to stop him.

CIA 'helped Saddam Hussein make chemical weapons attack on Iran' 1988 under Ronald Reagan | Mail Online

Feel stupid yet? Give it time.

Another difference:

Can you imagine "no drama Obama" telling America, "You are with us or with the terrorists" to push an agenda of manipulation and lies? Republicans insist Obama must be stupid because he doesn't rush off in a panic like a chicken with it's head cut off. They think he's paralyzed with fear and stupidity.
The problem is, they aren't used to thoughtful action based on study and intelligence. The Iraq fiasco proves that. And Obama won't put politics above the citizens of this country the way Republicans did when they blocked his administration from investigating BP or when they held millions of unemployed Americans hostage to extend the Bush tax cuts or when they lied America into Iraq in the hopes of making "oil money".

I don't have to imagine it, Obama does it every day.

If Obama is all about thoughtful action, why isn't he going to Congress, explaining what he wants, and asking them for their backing for his actions? That is what that impulsive cowboy Bush did.

Another difference:

America hadn't been "burned" before the way it was when tricked into Iraq by Bush and the Republicans. I thought Saddam was part of 9/11, most people did. A Zogby poll taken at the time had 90% of soldiers going to Iraq believing it was because of 9/11. Everyone thought we were taking out the guy who attacked us. The sacrificial lamb was the head of the CIA who has said, "Don't look at me. I wasn't me who fabricated intel".
Because of this, which led to the deaths and permanent maiming of tens of thousands of Americans and trillions of dollars lost, Americans simply aren't willing to get involved in another Middle East Conflict.

America wasn't burned by Vietnam?

When did that memo go out? I totally missed it.

And Finally:

What ever Obama does, we know from past experience it will be through careful deliberation. It's just the way he works. Republicans can't see that. Correction, Republicans WON'T see that. They refuse to. As sure as they deny evolution, climate change, supply and demand, and the positives of education, they will refuse to see anything this president does as reasonable. Because their disastrous policies and their military fiascoes have been anything but reasonable. Apparently, reason is not something they are familiar with.

Through careful deliberation? Like how he decided to call the legal arrest of a man who was trying to usurp his country's constitution a coup, and then demanded that he be reinstated?

Or how he called for Mubarek to resign immediately instead of giving the government a chance to write a new constitution and set up an orderly transition of power?

Or how, after Morsi was removed from office after he tried to make himself a dictator, he demanded that he be put back even though there were larger protest against Morsi than there were against Mubarek?

I guess I was right, the real difference is that Obama is president.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

saddam did gas the kurds. not iran.

Republicans say it, so it must be a lie.