Right-Wingers: What's different about Syria?

[Synthaholic]

Another lolberal droid heard from.

Notice how all the leftist hacks keep attempting to paint the false equivalence between the case for attacking Saddam's regime and the "case" for attacking Assad's regime?

They will never admit that there is no equivalence. Honesty is not their strong suit.

Yet you are unable to tell us why there is no equivalence.

I pointed out plenty in the OP. Until you match that with counter-arguments, you have nothing.

 

[whitehall]

The difference between the left wing and the right wing is illustrated in Clinton's "wag the dog" bombing of a defenseless European country. If the media supports it, it's good to go. European countries didn't want to get involved with the thousand year old Bosnian conflict but Clinton advisers looked around the world when Clinton was revealed to be nothing but a sleazy Arkansas pervert and found a likely victim. The left wing media was still in his front pocket and supported the US (NATO) bombing of Yugoslavia. Americans are better informed and stupid administrations can't get away with indiscriminate murder like they used to do.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

There are two differences.

1. The main one is that they oppose anything that Obama does.

2. The second is the American people are weary of war. After Bush's war fiascos, people are right to be suspicious, and opposed to it.

I think that Obama is wrong to be pushing for war in Syria. It is not our business. Things are unstable in the Mideast, and America can not constantly be fighting there.

I don't agree with your wording. I don't consider surgical strikes on airfields and perhaps military infrastructure to be 'war'.

If that was the case, Reagan declared 'war' on Quaddafi when he sent those missiles over at his tents in the 1980s, and Clinton declared 'war' on Afghanistan when he sent missiles at Osama bin Laden.

 

[Synthaholic]

sure it was...but that was excuse No. 345 on the excuses people used to go to war with Iraq.

SYRIA is NOT Iraq...try again...It's Obama trying to save his ass...hello REDLINE that he failed to act upon?

Do yourself a favour and pay attention to events, lemming...

And he looks weaker with every passing day.
THAT is why our progressive pals are out beating the war drums to rally support.
We GOTTA *do* something soon, else Obama looks like a waffler.

Now he plans on addressing the nation Tuesday night. 3/4 more days of him-hawing.

I could have supported the man if, as soon as he KNEW that "red line" had been crossed, he struck and struck hard.

Now he's like, "Uh...well let;s see what congress thinks" or "We have a very strong polling agency engaged in the WH that will help determine our next move".


For GOD'S sake, man!!!!
Make a decision!
Own it!

You miss Cowboy Diplomacy.

You want him to 'shoot from the hip'...'shoot first, ask questions later'...


Because being decisive is better than being right!

Right?

 

[percysunshine]

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.

Why don't you list all the reasons for Iraq. There were 23 of them.

See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/pdf/PLAW-107publ243.pdf


I particularly want to point out these two;

'Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President
Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United
States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility
for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are
known to be in Iraq;



Doesn't it seem a bit silly to compare Iraq to Syria when we were going into Iraq to fight Al Queda, and we would be aiding and abetting them in Syria?

.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

You seem to have your mind made up, so why ask the questions?

Because I'm asking Right-Wingers for their opinion.

And my mind is only made up as far as being certain that we must answer this use of CW. And it must be a strong enough action that it gives Assad serious pause.

That could mean bombing things he needs to stay in power. It could mean freezing every asset he has around the world.

I don't know. I don't care. As long as it's substantial.

For me, I don't see any strategic gains to be made by attacking Assad and siding with Al Qaeda, we don't have a cease-fire with Syria that was breached, and Assad isn't harboring terrorists. However, my mind isn't made up.

This has nothing to do with 'strategic gains'. It has to do with upholding the ban on CW.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

* UN inspectors report completed
- Bush: Yes
- Obama: No

* UN Security Council Authorization
- Bush: Yes
- Obama: No

* Coalition of the Willing
- Bush: Yes
- Obama: No

* Authorization from Congress
- Bush: Yes
- Obama: No

* Goal of Regime Change:
- Bush: Yes
- Obama: No

You are not answering my question, Sherry.

Why aren't RW-ers supporting a strike on Syria?

Obviously, they supported striking Iraq, otherwise Congressional Republicans wouldn't have authorized it.

If the UN inspector reports say that Assad used gas, will you support a strike?

She DID answer you question, but you refused to accept it.

I'll add to it. Iraq invaded one of our allies (Kuwait). We mobilized an incredible coalition and kicked their a$$es back to Iraq. That is what America IS, and that is what we SHOULD DO. We only stopped kicking their a$$es when Hussein capitulated. Part of his capitulation was that he promised to let UN weapons inspectors have free reign. This was part of us stopping the military action.

So, what's the difference (try to keep up)... We waged war on another country in defense of one of our allies being invaded. We won the war, and the declared cease-fire was predicated on free reign of weapons inspector. The nation of Iraq reneged on the cease-fire by not letting the weapons inspectors do their jobs. After numerous UN sanctions we had plenty of moral authority to wage war.

What has Syria done? First, not sure if it was Assad who used the chems. There is good evidence that the rebels have chem weapons. Second, this is strictly a civil war with absolutely no United States national interest (beyond the moral enforcement of "no using nukes/chems").

Big difference between the two.

 

[Synthaholic]

awe cute attempt welcher

Don't back-peddle now, you dishonest hack.

You made your admission of your dishonesty. Stand by it.

Later on, feel free to tell us whatever you want to tell us about your welshing.

look at the welcher deflecting again. You going to change your name again Princess? Run off again?
I bet you will

He'll take that bet!

Then he'll welsh on it.

 

[Katzndogz]

If obama intends to punish those who used cw, why aren't we bombing the aq rebels?

 

[Synthaholic]

I was/am against both wars but I'll chime in seriously here:

Iraq used WMDs on the Kurds, killed thousands. Assad in Syria allegedly has used them to kill hundreds.

Saying that the people in Iraq were our allies is a stretch, saying the rebels in Syria are our allies would be a lie.

The GOP had support of John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and a number of other Democrats. Obama has John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner, and a number of other Republicans.

Bush got the go-ahead from Congress, it remains to be seen if obama will.

Pretty close but the edge has to go to GWB and Iraq.

We didn't go to war with Iraq in 2003 because he gassed the Kurds in 1988. To claim so would be absurd.

Bush/Cheney/Rice made the connection between bin Laden and Saddam, falsely. They weren't talking about CW, they were talking about mushroom clouds and yellowcake.

In Syria, CW attacks have actually occurred.


How, in the Right-Wing mind, does the threat of an attack justify a bigger response than an actual attack?

 

[Synthaholic]

^^^ Some people still think "Bush done good!"

 

[dblack]

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.

Embarrassingly wrong. Liberals do not support a strike. The Liberal argument is made strongest by Rep. Alan Grayson and his website: Tell Congress: Don?t Attack Syria



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvY8b4qZabY]Grayson tells White House: Don't Attack Syria - YouTube[/ame]

Grayson has taken over from Kucinich as the Ron Paul of the Democrats. But don't try to bullshit us - he doesn't represent the Democratic norm in Congress. Most of them are perfectly content with the welfare/warfare status quo.

 

[Samson]

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.

What does Left wing support of strikes prove?

That as long as a Democrat President Kills children in a pre-emptive strike, then its OK?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Don't back-peddle now, you dishonest hack.

You made your admission of your dishonesty. Stand by it.

Later on, feel free to tell us whatever you want to tell us about your welshing.

look at the welcher deflecting again. You going to change your name again Princess? Run off again?
I bet you will

He'll take that bet!

Then he'll welsh on it.

As you know, I never welshed on the bet. I don't welsh. Period.

Anyway, your pathetic attempt to deflect is very much like Princess Ball-less' effort.

Do you give lil' miss ball-less a good salad tossing when you go down on that pathetic piece of shit, too?

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

Assad poses no immediate threat to us. It's as simple as that.

If we picked a fight with everyone who didn't like us or had an Army we'd be declaring war every damned day.


The reasons Obama wants to get rid of him aren't clear, but you can bet they aren't what he's claiming them to be.

How did Saddam pose an immediate threat to us?

 

[Synthaholic]

Could be as simple as the R W'S have evolved.

This statement implies that Republicans have to catch up to Liberals in the evolution department.

 

[whitehall]

Bill Clinton and the CIA made the connection between WMD's and Saddam. George Bush went along with UN sanctions after 9-11 and gave Saddam a year to comply with the listed violations. Meanwhile 30% of democrat congresspeople went along with republicans and Bush had a clear authorization. What is Barry Hussein's agenda besides bailing himself out of a dozen scandals? WTF is the mission?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I was/am against both wars but I'll chime in seriously here:

Iraq used WMDs on the Kurds, killed thousands. Assad in Syria allegedly has used them to kill hundreds.

Saying that the people in Iraq were our allies is a stretch, saying the rebels in Syria are our allies would be a lie.

The GOP had support of John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and a number of other Democrats. Obama has John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner, and a number of other Republicans.

Bush got the go-ahead from Congress, it remains to be seen if obama will.

Pretty close but the edge has to go to GWB and Iraq.

We didn't go to war with Iraq in 2003 because he gassed the Kurds in 1988. To claim so would be absurd.

Bush/Cheney/Rice made the connection between bin Laden and Saddam, falsely. They weren't talking about CW, they were talking about mushroom clouds and yellowcake.

In Syria, CW attacks have actually occurred.


How, in the Right-Wing mind, does the threat of an attack justify a bigger response than an actual attack?

Saddam's business with the Kurds always got tossed into the mix when the cases for war were being made. Both Bushes used it for their wars.

 

[tinydancer]

Your president wants to kill people. no blanket kill. He just wants to kill.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Both Princess Ball-less and his girlfriend, Synthia, think that opposing all wars is the only way to be an upright good lolberal Democratic.

Meanwhile, the imbecile they cannot worship enough, their brainless Obamessiah, is busy warmongering for NO reason that jerkoff can even articulate. President Obumbler is so woerfully and totally inept, he still hasn't stated what our national interest is in lobbing missiles into Assad's military sites.

Is Assad a pindick motherfucking evil mutant worthy of a good cruise missile strike? Sure.

Lots of other scumbags are committing more and worse atrocities than he is, however, and Obumbler is not going after THEM. So, evidently, humanitarian imperative is NOT the basis.

That being the case, it would SEEM that there must be either some Assad orchestrated imminent threat against the U.S. (which Obumbler has failed to even claim??) OR Assad's behavior somehow in and of itself CONSTITUTES such a threat to OUR national security. Sadly, Pres. Obumbler has failed entirely to make THAT claim, either.

So, beyond the fact that the failure in chief made a "line in the sand" type comment last year, Assad ignored Obumbler and "did it" anyway, and the failure in chief now feels obliged to do "something," some haphazard effort, to save face, what reason exists to have US commit clear acts of war?

It aint the War Powers Resolution. There is simply no ground in that law for the President's unilateral and non Congressional authorized effort. It is not immediate retaliation for any strike against us. He hasn't made any claim about what our national interest is in striking Assad's military sites. In fact, ALL he has claimed is that if we don't act, the scumbag dictator might feel emboldened. But that is NOT one of the bases for a Presidential action of this kind. Not under the Constitution and not even under the War Powers Resolution.

Obumbler is threatening to act illegally.

Some conservatives oppose it (consistency is noted). But many support Obumbler. Inconsistency noted. Being thus divided, they instinctively point the finger at the Republicans and at conservatives. But, bad news: Booooosh aint the President at this moment. It's all on uber lolberal Democratic Obumbler.