Right-Wingers: What's different about Syria?

[Billo_Really]

Have any proof of that, wise-ass?

The Downing Street Minutes.

Bush told the British what he was going to do ("fix the intel around the policy"), then he went out and did it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Have any proof of that, wise-ass?

The Downing Street Minutes.

Bush told the British what he was going to do ("fix the intel around the policy"), then he went out and did it.

Debunked:

Robin Niblett, a member of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, has said it would be easy for Americans to misunderstand the reference to intelligence being "fixed around" Iraq policy. " 'Fixed around' in British English means 'bolted on' rather than altered to fit the policy," he says. This view was seconded by Christopher Hitchens and Fred Kaplan.

What's really in the Downing Street memos? - Slate Magazine

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now I'll ask you again, where's the proof Bush "cooked the books"?

 

[Boatswain2PA]

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 ask such a question when you are so ideologically leftist you lack the ability to understand the answers?

What would be your goals in striking Syria? To simply "punish" Assad for using CW? I think that is reasonable, although we are a few weeks too late for that, AND there is some real evidence that it wasn't Assad that used the CW but rather the Al Qaeda rebels.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Val Jarrett's already made the decision to strike Syria, she just needs to tell Obama about it

"Ready To Rule from day one" Val Jarrett?

And NOTE she is also the one that stated that she and her cronies were ready to go after all that opposed Obama...(I suspect SHE is at the root of the IRS debacle)...I digress...

She gave the order to kill bin Laden so she could run AQ and the White House

 

[The T]

Val Jarrett's already made the decision to strike Syria, she just needs to tell Obama about it

"Ready To Rule from day one" Val Jarrett?

And NOTE she is also the one that stated that she and her cronies were ready to go after all that opposed Obama...(I suspect SHE is at the root of the IRS debacle)...I digress...

She gave the order to kill bin Laden so she could run AQ and the White House

The woman is evil...and I mean that.

 

[TooTall]

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?

Since the Arab league joined Bush in the coalition of the willing, I surmise that they considered Saddam an imminent threat to the entire middle east. Disruption of the WORLD oil supply is one helluva an immediate threat.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

.

Writing history to make it say what you want to be true?

Don't blame me because you are a lazy stupid fuck who refuses to be informed.

.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

.

Very interesting!

I thought it was the slant drilling, but I can see that possibility well.

Iraq Accuses Kuwait Of Slant Drilling And Stealing 300,000 Barrels Of Oil Daily

The Rumaila oil field is a super-giant oil field[2] located in southern Iraq, approximately 20 mi (32 km) from the Kuwaiti border.[3] The dispute between Iraq and Kuwait over alleged slant-drilling in the field was one of reasons for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.[4][5] This field was discovered by the Basrah Petroleum Company (BPC), an associate company of the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), in 1953.[6][7][8] Under Abd al-Karim Qasim, the oilfield was confiscated by the Iraqi government by Public Law No. 80 of 11 December 1961.[9] Since then, this massive oil field has remained under Iraqi control. The assets and rights of IPC were nationalised by Saddam Hussein in 1972, and those of BPC in 1975.[10] Rumaila is considered the third largest field in the world.[11]"

.

 

[Edgetho]

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.

.

Very interesting!

I thought it was the slant drilling, but I can see that possibility well.

Iraq Accuses Kuwait Of Slant Drilling And Stealing 300,000 Barrels Of Oil Daily

The Rumaila oil field is a super-giant oil field[2] located in southern Iraq, approximately 20 mi (32 km) from the Kuwaiti border.[3] The dispute between Iraq and Kuwait over alleged slant-drilling in the field was one of reasons for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.[4][5] This field was discovered by the Basrah Petroleum Company (BPC), an associate company of the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), in 1953.[6][7][8] Under Abd al-Karim Qasim, the oilfield was confiscated by the Iraqi government by Public Law No. 80 of 11 December 1961.[9] Since then, this massive oil field has remained under Iraqi control. The assets and rights of IPC were nationalised by Saddam Hussein in 1972, and those of BPC in 1975.[10] Rumaila is considered the third largest field in the world.[11]"

.

There is a great deal of truth in your post. Improper conclusions IMO, but at least they're based on factual evidence

There was also the issue of April Glaspie and Bush 41's ill-fated and rather idiotic attempt at Political Correctness by appointing a Female Ambassador to an Arab Ambassadorship.

Stupid. Beyond stupid. And why I was never, and will never, be a fan of any of the Bush boys.

The best thing that can be said about any of them is that they're not scum-of-the-Earth dimocraps. Other than that, they're pretty useless. Political Correctness is for children and College kids. And stupid fucking dimocraps (like there's any other kind) Not for real life. It gets people hurt and killed

Saddam totally misunderstood what Glaspie was saying to him and, IMO, she may have misrepresented what Baker had said to her.

Saddam invaded Kuwait shortly after her meeting with him.

 

[kaz]

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.

"Assad wouldn't use CW without approval or direction from Teheran." - This is a logical fallacy called "begging the question." I am saying it's more logical the rebels did it, you're assuming the truth of your own position that it's Assad.

As for the gun in Newtown thing, how's making sure that lunatics are the only ones armed when they go postal working for you? How many schools, malls, movie theaters and need to get shot up with no one shooting back before we try a different solution?

 

[SFC Ollie]

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.

By punishing Assad in any action that would actually hurt him you are giving a victory to Al Quaede...... Are you that blinded by Obama?

 

[Contumacious]

Very interesting!

I thought it was the slant drilling, but I can see that possibility well.

Iraq Accuses Kuwait Of Slant Drilling And Stealing 300,000 Barrels Of Oil Daily

The Rumaila oil field is a super-giant oil field[2] located in southern Iraq, approximately 20 mi (32 km) from the Kuwaiti border.[3] The dispute between Iraq and Kuwait over alleged slant-drilling in the field was one of reasons for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.[4][5] This field was discovered by the Basrah Petroleum Company (BPC), an associate company of the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), in 1953.[6][7][8] Under Abd al-Karim Qasim, the oilfield was confiscated by the Iraqi government by Public Law No. 80 of 11 December 1961.[9] Since then, this massive oil field has remained under Iraqi control. The assets and rights of IPC were nationalised by Saddam Hussein in 1972, and those of BPC in 1975.[10] Rumaila is considered the third largest field in the world.[11]"

.

Saddam totally misunderstood what Glaspie was saying to him and, IMO, she may have misrepresented what Baker had said to her.
.

BULLSHIT


Bush I did exactly the same thing Obama is doing now


"George Bush the elder then did a bait-and-switch, and began preparing for his war on Iraq. But the biggest task for Bush was to convince the American people that the war on behalf of Kuwait, an extremely anti-democratic, authoritarian monarchy, was not for oil but for “liberating” Kuwait from Saddam.


To sell this war to the American people, the government of Kuwait hired as many as 20 PR and lobbying firms. One PR firm in particular, Hill and Knowlton, was apparently the “mastermind” of the PR campaign, according to PR industry experts John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, whose book Toxic Sludge Is Good for You provides the details of the Bush-Kuwait PR campaign, as excerpted by PR Watch.

The most effective PR ploy was the congressional testimony of a teenage Kuwaiti girl who stated, emotionally, that she witnessed Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of hospital incubators and leaving them “on the cold floor to die.” The girl later turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. And not only was that fact suppressed until after Bush’s war began, but the information she gave was false, and the girl had been coached by an executive of Hill and Knowlton. (Video)http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/03/scott/the-22-year-bush-war-of-aggression-on-iraq/

.

 

[Billo_Really]

Debunked:

Robin Niblett, a member of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, has said it would be easy for Americans to misunderstand the reference to intelligence being "fixed around" Iraq policy. " 'Fixed around' in British English means 'bolted on' rather than altered to fit the policy," he says. This view was seconded by Christopher Hitchens and Fred Kaplan.

What's really in the Downing Street memos? - Slate Magazine

That's not being debunked!

"...fix the intel around the policy..." were Bush's words, not the British. It was Bush's definition of what that meant. And it's pretty fuckin' obvious what that was.

Richard Pearle said all Bush wanted to talk about after he became President, was finding a way to attack Iraq. After 9/11, he directed everyone to find an "Iraqi link", for justification to an invasion.

And then there were all the things he said that didn't make sense...

• Iraq was a threat
• they had WMD's
• they wouldn't let inspectors in the country
• we've exhausted all diplomatic options
• this is Saddam's final warning

A country that can only generate 9 hours of electricity a day, is not a threat to anyone; they hadn't had WMD's since 1993; inspectors were already in the country driving around in white vans; 1441 was in the process of being enforced, so diplomatic options were not exhausted; and there was no reason to rush to war at that time.

When you step back and look at all of that in context, it's pretty obvious what he said to the British.

 

[SFC Ollie]

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.

Not the OP... Good answer.......Even though these are the same reasons that many on the right are against this action.... Do we punish Assad by helping AQ?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!

And any punishment to Assad would help AQ........

 

[SFC Ollie]

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.

.

Writing history to make it say what you want to be true?

Don't blame me because you are a lazy stupid fuck who refuses to be informed.

.

Obviously better informed than you are.....But that's another story...

 

[blackhawk]

The two worth responding to:

I don't for a second believe Obama wants to use force, but sometimes the integrity of the United States Of America must be upheld. Not Obama's integrity with his red line comment - the country's. This has been a red line since 1925.
So we have to use force to save the integrity of the country that Obama damaged by making a boast he was not prepared to back up?

That promise to upheld happened in 1925.

Why do wingnuts want to disregard U.S. laws and treaties?
Then why didn't you on the left support action against Sadam? Yes that was in 1988 when he used chemical weapons but if you want U.S. laws and treaties enforced better late than never right?

and:

We've already violated the Geneva Conventions under Bush - are we going to totally disregard them from this point on?
Ah B.D.S.

No, torture.
As hard as it is for you to accept no there was no torture.

As for not responding to the others that tends to happen when the facts don't support you.

 

[Ropey]

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.

By punishing Assad in any action that would actually hut him you are giving a victory to Al Quaede...... Are you that blinded by Obama?

Yes.

President Obama wants to further his Arab Spring Debacle by extending it to Syria. He wants to do this because he wants his Al-Qaida allied, pro-radical jihadist, anti-American, Shariah Law or death, Christian persecuting, Muslim Brotherhood Sunni friends in control of the Middle East.

Instead of the Shia (Iran). Who now have Iraq and Syria with the road to Damascus intact.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Debunked:

Robin Niblett, a member of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, has said it would be easy for Americans to misunderstand the reference to intelligence being "fixed around" Iraq policy. " 'Fixed around' in British English means 'bolted on' rather than altered to fit the policy," he says. This view was seconded by Christopher Hitchens and Fred Kaplan.

What's really in the Downing Street memos? - Slate Magazine

That's not being debunked!

"...fix the intel around the policy..." were Bush's words, not the British. It was Bush's definition of what that meant. And it's pretty fuckin' obvious what that was.

Richard Pearle said all Bush wanted to talk about after he became President, was finding a way to attack Iraq. After 9/11, he directed everyone to find an "Iraqi link", for justification to an invasion.

And then there were all the things he said that didn't make sense...

• Iraq was a threat
• they had WMD's
• they wouldn't let inspectors in the country
• we've exhausted all diplomatic options
• this is Saddam's final warning

A country that can only generate 9 hours of electricity a day, is not a threat to anyone; they hadn't had WMD's since 1993; inspectors were already in the country driving around in white vans; 1441 was in the process of being enforced, so diplomatic options were not exhausted; and there was no reason to rush to war at that time.

When you step back and look at all of that in context, it's pretty obvious what he said to the British.

Yet Bush stated in 2001 that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.........

 

[longknife]

My view -

If the U.S. it to make a military strike against Syria - we should attack Al Queda sites as well as Saddam's!!!!