Right-Wingers: What's different about Syria?

[Synthaholic]

I do not know if I buy this one (even in small part), but wouldn't it be kind of ironic if it turned out that Obumbler's support of striking at Assad was based on -- wait for it --

oil? Well, oil and global-sized geopolitics:

-- excerpted from: The Truth Behind the War in Syria: The Qatari Natural Gas Pipeline ? Obama?s War for Oil | sharia unveiled

^ worth a read.

Not the first time I heard this explanation, though

My skepticism is based on many factors, one of which is that the article I cited contains several internal hyperlinks, and one of those is to some shit by Alex Jones. I wouldn't trust anything said by Alex Jones and his "InfoWars" without complete independent verification. On a bright sunny, cloudless day at high noon, that shit bird could say "the sky is bright today," and I'd want an official meteorological report to verify the claim.

I would want the very first line verified:

Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria?

 

[Synthaholic]

* 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?

I thought Sherry gave a good answer, but I know it's not what you want to hear so it's not an answer. Tell me, which side in Syria should we be on? The ones who are infiltrated or straight out backing al Queada, or Assad? And then tell us why Democrats aren't supporting an attack on Syria either.....

We have no friends in Syria..........

We shouldn't be on either side.

Has nothing to do with punishing Assad for using CW.

 

[tinydancer]

How did Saddam pose an immediate threat to us?

Was Saddam shooting at OUR planes in the Iraq no-fly zone since long before Bush was elected?

The lead up to the Iraq war was intensive. If you want to play games little one by all means do so, but you better be ready for hell on earth to rain down on you.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Not the first time I heard this explanation, though

My skepticism is based on many factors, one of which is that the article I cited contains several internal hyperlinks, and one of those is to some shit by Alex Jones. I wouldn't trust anything said by Alex Jones and his "InfoWars" without complete independent verification. On a bright sunny, cloudless day at high noon, that shit bird could say "the sky is bright today," and I'd want an official meteorological report to verify the claim.

I would want the very first line verified:

Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria?

Instinctively, I hate to agree with you. But honestly, I have to acknowledge that your question about that is fair enough.

I am not even sure HOW to "verify" that claim.

 

[tinydancer]

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?

I thought Sherry gave a good answer, but I know it's not what you want to hear so it's not an answer. Tell me, which side in Syria should we be on? The ones who are infiltrated or straight out backing al Queada, or Assad? And then tell us why Democrats aren't supporting an attack on Syria either.....

We have no friends in Syria..........

We shouldn't be on either side.

Has nothing to do with punishing Assad for using CW.

And you high and mighty Assad has not been proven to do so.

Woa geeze here. No way.

 

[Synthaholic]

Give UP. Obama is toast.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/election-forums/255653-romney-has-it-locked-up.html

 

[Synthaholic]

You poor little booby. If you had a shred of intellectual honesty, you'd be happy to see opposition to this thoroughly corrupt attempt by Obama to "save face".

What is "corrupt" about it?

Corrupt as in He's LYING to us.

Plain enough, or are you that ignorant?

What has he lied about?

 

[Synthaholic]

This^^

The screen grab from Wiki that I just posted proves this wrong.

A Changeable reference? Really?

*DUPE*

You think the Congressional vote total for the Iraq War is changeable on Wikipedia?

You are one dumb motherfucker. And I'll probably just put you on ignore. You're just too retarded.

 

[momsapplepie]

We can rule out a couple of Obama's excuses for wanting to Bomb Syria.
Humanitarian? If that was the case why didn't we bomb after the first instance of chemical weapons being used back in Dec, or even in March?
Why was he backing the rebels before that, calling for Assad to be deposed over a year ago?
Why the game with congress when he has already shown that he doesn't care what their opinion is such as when he bombed in Libya?

There is something far worse going on behind the scenes . Obama can't be trusted.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The article I cited earlier which claimed that Qatar has spent $3 billion supporting the rebels, was (in the article) a hyper link to a "report" in the Financial Times. Qatar bankrolls Syrian revolt with cash and arms - FT.com

But that doesn't answer the question by Synthia, because access to that article is limited (and I'm not shelling out money to buy FT rights). And even then, it reports "sources" but does not tell us who the sources are. So it remains kind of unverifiable and "iffy."

Mystery Sponsor Of Weapons And Money To Syrian Mercenary "Rebels" Revealed | Zero Hedge

 

[Synthaholic]

If humanitarianism is driving the fierce urgency of now, then why isn't Obama equally concerned about Coptic Christians in Egypt, the victims in Darfur, the state owned slaves in North Korea....

Who has claimed that "humanitarianism is driving the fierce urgency"?

No one.

The rationale is the use of CW.

That was indeed Obumbler's red line. But in the process, Assad has slaughtered in the hundreds. Putting aside the mechanism of the slaughter, there have been thousands upon thousand slaughtered in Africa, with no official U.S. action to stop it.

So, it would seem to be that your concern, and Obumbler's concern, is that the mechanism of death of a thousand to two thousand is chemical weapons whereas the slaughter of maybe 200,000 or more in the Darfur region only involved starvation and regular weapons?

Am I the only one seeing something wrong with this picture you guys are trying to draw?

Chemical weapons are banned under the 1925 Geneva Conventions.

Conventional weapons are not.

What is so difficult to understand?

 

[Synthaholic]

Notice how Synthia won't address Al Queada in Syria or why the Dems aren't flocking to Obama's banner?

That's not the OP.

 

[Wildman]

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.

If you are that incredibly stupid that you have to ask...... Then you are beyond help.

Try drugs. Lots of them.

i think he did way too many as it is, no one can be that stupid unless his mind was eaten up by acid, and i do not mean the "Mickey Mouse" kind......,

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

I hear what you're saying and I understand why you're saying it. But I have no desire to be hitting any right-wingers (who are against an air strike) over the head on this issue.

In fact, it's kind of nice to see an issue we can finally join forces on.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Who has claimed that "humanitarianism is driving the fierce urgency"?

No one.

The rationale is the use of CW.

That was indeed Obumbler's red line. But in the process, Assad has slaughtered in the hundreds. Putting aside the mechanism of the slaughter, there have been thousands upon thousand slaughtered in Africa, with no official U.S. action to stop it.

So, it would seem to be that your concern, and Obumbler's concern, is that the mechanism of death of a thousand to two thousand is chemical weapons whereas the slaughter of maybe 200,000 or more in the Darfur region only involved starvation and regular weapons?

Am I the only one seeing something wrong with this picture you guys are trying to draw?

Chemical weapons are banned under the 1925 Geneva Conventions.

Conventional weapons are not.

What is so difficult to understand?

Ah. So it's the fact that SOME weapons are "illegal" that has you concerned? Not the number of people killed by whatever the weapons might be. 200,000+ by "legal" weapons is -- well -- ok.

But > 2,000 by "illegal" weapons is -- "bad."

Please.

 

[Synthaholic]

You are an even bigger moron than I previously thought. What do you think Saddam gased the Kurds with? His farts? Dumbass.

You mean back in 1988, while Bush The Greater was POTUS, and did nothing?

What does that have to do with 2003? That wasn't Bush The Lesser's reasoning for invading. It was all about "mushroom clouds" and "Yellowcake".

All?

No.


Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

It was "all" of the sell-job (snow-job) to the American people.

Find a Bush speech that points to CW as the rationale for invasion.

 

[Synthaholic]

Am I a right winger?

You have no proof that Assad has used Sarin so you can fuck off from the get go.

And when there is proof? What can I fuck then?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I did find a pdf version of the FT article, for those who are interested. Still: just unnamed sources (rebels at that).

Immagini

 

[tinydancer]

My skepticism is based on many factors, one of which is that the article I cited contains several internal hyperlinks, and one of those is to some shit by Alex Jones. I wouldn't trust anything said by Alex Jones and his "InfoWars" without complete independent verification. On a bright sunny, cloudless day at high noon, that shit bird could say "the sky is bright today," and I'd want an official meteorological report to verify the claim.

I would want the very first line verified:

Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria?

Instinctively, I hate to agree with you. But honestly, I have to acknowledge that your question about that is fair enough.

I am not even sure HOW to "verify" that claim.

Any source.

 

[Synthaholic]

History repeats...Odumbo is allowing it by bluster.

He is such a fuckup...and WE will pay the price in trust. I am PISSED he is doing this to us.

Hold the table steady. You have to remember that Putin is the best poker player on the planet.

And that's the other part that I am pissed about. I am rooting for a known Communist KGB acolyte from the Cold War...that I want to see call Obama's BLUFF.

MY the Tables turn...

That's why you are a piece of shit. You root against your own country.