Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What is the difference in rationale between Iraq and Syria?
- Dictator/Tyrant has WMD capability
- Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
- Danger to Israel
- De-stabilize ME
Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.
No, the Left who support a strike do so because CW cannot be allowed. Period. It IS a red line.
Bullshit.
The left knows that the Syrian saga is merely a scam to provoke Iran into retaliate thereby providing the Obama a pretext to invade that country.
.
rofl
And the colour of the sky in your world is ... ?
Iraq did and proved it with their invasion of Kuwait.
The UN supported the Iraq mission and 30% of democrats voted for it. It doesn't matter that the 30% of democrats in congress who voted for it eventually turned traitor and un-supported the mission. That's the way the democrat party works.
^^^ Retard.Wassup, Synth?
Threw in the towel when you realized there's no measurable difference between Bush and Obama?
If Obama is no different than Bush, why aren't conservatives supporting him the way they supported Bush?
And why aren't all you laughable lolberals vocally objecting to Obumbler's efforts?
Even good old Bubba Bill Clinton had a clear cut agenda in Bosnia.?
What is the difference in rationale between Iraq and Syria?
- Dictator/Tyrant has WMD capability
- Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
- Danger to Israel
- De-stabilize ME
Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.
Iraq did and proved it with their invasion of Kuwait.
Bullshit.
Iraq helped Reagan attack Iran
While fighting Iran, Kuwait stole the Ramallah Oil fields
Saddam asked Bush I if it could invade Kuwait to retrieve the oil fields.
Bush I stated that the US did not give a shit about Arab to Arab conflicts and to go for it.
Then Bush I reversed itself and the rest is history.
.
What is the difference in rationale between Iraq and Syria?
- Dictator/Tyrant has WMD capability
- Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
- Danger to Israel
- De-stabilize ME
Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.
The difference is that we have a Democratic President. If a Republican was in the White House the Republicans would be beating the drums for war.
Republicans oppose everything Obama does. They want everything he does to fail.
I do not even dispute (or doubt) that it was Assad and his filthy regime who used the chemical weapons on innocent civilians. But, even if that is the base assumption, it still does not necessarily follow (logically) that we have any obligation to go lob missiles at his military sites. Again, Obumbler has failed to make the case.
Agreed. There are no good guys in Syria. I opposed Iraq, but at least they did have a shot with the Shiites of having a non-terrorist sponsoring government. In Syria, Assad is probably less bad than the opposition.
I don't see how it made sense for Assad to use chemical weapons either. He has plenty of conventional ones and chemical as WMDs would have a far higher chance of this sort of backlash. On the other hand, the rebels have both the means (Iran) and motivation to use them.
Call me crazy, but I don't trust John Kerry we have proof. Sorry.
That's the only word you seem to know, dope.Perhaps the moniker 'Statist(s)' would lend a clue?The REAL question about Syria, is for all you laughable lolberals.
Given your adamant opposition to the war when W was voicing the case for going after Saddam (and ever since), how is it possible you can support Obumbler's exhortations to start committing acts of war against Assad's regime?
Both the liberals and the neocons support military action in Syria and all the leftys see is the GOP. I would call them blind liberals but that would be redundant.
I do not even dispute (or doubt) that it was Assad and his filthy regime who used the chemical weapons on innocent civilians. But, even if that is the base assumption, it still does not necessarily follow (logically) that we have any obligation to go lob missiles at his military sites. Again, Obumbler has failed to make the case.
Agreed. There are no good guys in Syria. I opposed Iraq, but at least they did have a shot with the Shiites of having a non-terrorist sponsoring government. In Syria, Assad is probably less bad than the opposition.
I don't see how it made sense for Assad to use chemical weapons either. He has plenty of conventional ones and chemical as WMDs would have a far higher chance of this sort of backlash. On the other hand, the rebels have both the means (Iran) and motivation to use them.
Call me crazy, but I don't trust John Kerry we have proof. Sorry.
Assad wouldn't use CW without approval or direction from Teheran.
Maybe Iran wanted this as a trial balloon. Maybe they want to use CW against us if we attack them, and be able to claim it's perfectly legit. They see a Republican Party that opposes everything Obama wants. It would be easy to guess that they would oppose him on this, also.
If 23 murdered 5 year-olds in Newtown couldn't get them to compromise with Obama, why would this? Especially since there is no oil involved.
The REAL question about Syria, is for all you laughable lolberals.
Given your adamant opposition to the war when W was voicing the case for going after Saddam (and ever since), how is it possible you can support Obumbler's exhortations to start committing acts of war against Assad's regime?
^ The other side's point to the OP.
It is the counter argument, no doubt. Turn his premise on it's head by asking the other side of the "equation," and watch them spin.
My own answer to Synthia's "question" is simple and straightforward. The case for military action against Saddam's regime is not even remotely akin to the case for military action against Assad's regime.
There is a determined effort by guys like Synthia at offering an argument based on a false equivalence. Reject their false premise :: reject the argument and the conclusion they want folks to come to.
What is the difference in rationale between Iraq and Syria?
- Dictator/Tyrant has WMD capability
- Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
- Danger to Israel
- De-stabilize ME
Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.
The difference is that we have a Democratic President. If a Republican was in the White House the Republicans would be beating the drums for war.
Republicans oppose everything Obama does. They want everything he does to fail.
because conservative are smarter than libtards( who are a partisan brainwashed crowd) and learn from previous mistakes?
And where do I find the thread where all the conservative Iraq war supporters around here admit that Iraq was a mistake and admit they were wrong to support it?
In fact, they can post that here, now.
We'll be able to tell by how many make that admission whether or not you're full of shit.
If I don't see Iraq as a mistake (or at least not nearly as much of a mistake as you laughable lolberals falsely claim it was), then it would obviously be impossible to have me "admit" any such thing. You may "admit" to what you consider a lie. But I don't.
I am not in favor of arming the rebels. Just to be clear.Whatever happened to old con argument that regimes like Syria, and circumstances such as regimes like Syria possessing WMD's,
constituted a threat to our 'ally' Israel?
We used to hear that line every other day. Have all you born again isolationists decided that Israel really isn't our ally?
Can we accomplish the same WITHOUT backing AQ/MB to do so?
Iraq did and proved it with their invasion of Kuwait.
Bullshit.
Iraq helped Reagan attack Iran
While fighting Iran, Kuwait stole the Ramallah Oil fields
Saddam asked Bush I if it could invade Kuwait to retrieve the oil fields.
Bush I stated that the US did not give a shit about Arab to Arab conflicts and to go for it.
Then Bush I reversed itself and the rest is history.
.
