Right-Wingers: What's different about Syria?

[The T]

You are showing your ignorance....Remember, Obamas plan was to attack. Or doesn't that count now?

It was President Obama's (praise be unto Him!) plan to discourage Assad from using CW again.

He succeeded without a drop of American blood or a dime of American money.


No wonder you are so butthurt.

And you are too stupid to realize that you just trashed the whole idea of your OP....Which was why isn't the right backing Obamas plan to ATTACK Syria...

Damn you're stupid.......

And Putin gives Obama an OUT....based on something idiotic Kerry stated and reported as a GAFF by the State Department....Obama signs on to a GAFF by his own Secretary of state presented BY another THUG...Putin....

You just can't make this shit up....

Synthia on the other hand is butthurt because He has NO direction now to go...

 

[The T]

Attacking Syria is like kicking the shit out of your sister...when its her boyfriend that's the problem. That's what a wimp would do.

Obama was trying and still IS trying to play toughguy...when he had plenty of time to deal with this...Putin handed him his ass on a platter, patted him on the back as Putin escorts his sorry ass out of the ME as a RUBE.

Looks to me like he's fooling no one except Sympleton.

What it must be like to be owned in an old thread of your making. Synthia is beside himself for his defeat backing his Boyking.....Beware of backlash...Synthia is famous for it...

 

[Pop23]

You are showing your ignorance....Remember, Obamas plan was to attack. Or doesn't that count now?

It was President Obama's (praise be unto Him!) plan to discourage Assad from using CW again.

He succeeded without a drop of American blood or a dime of American money.


No wonder you are so butthurt.

And you are too stupid to realize that you just trashed the whole idea of your OP....Which was why isn't the right backing Obamas plan to ATTACK Syria...

Damn you're stupid.......

Sympleton spins so much he gets dizzy

You can tell when he's lost his way when he calls people retards.

Sad really

 

[georgephillip]

Is the following an acceptable solution to the Syrian dilemma?

"Discussions concerning the possible partitioning of Syria became a hot-button issue in the corridors of the UN after a blogger reported that an unnamed diplomat revealed the plan to partition Syria into three new states—Alawite, Sunni and Kurdish."

Who benefits from a divided Syria?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The obvious question to the leftists
If you support The Obama's argument for action in Syria, why did you oppose GWB in Iraq
I mean other than you'd simply partisan bigots...?

 

[dblack]

The obvious question to the leftists
If you support The Obama's argument for action in Syria, why did you oppose GWB in Iraq
I mean other than you'd simply partisan bigots...?

Indeed. It's like 'dueling hypocrites'.

 

[Synthaholic]

Meep Meep, Motherfuckers

“Had we rolled out something that was very smooth and disciplined and linear, they would have graded it well, even if it was a disastrous policy. We know that, because that’s exactly how they graded the Iraq war,” – President Obama.


Oh, snap!


It’s been awesome to watch today as all the jerking knees quieted a little and all the instant judgments of the past month ceded to a deeper acknowledgment (even among Republicans) of what had actually been substantively achieved: something that, if it pans out, might be truly called a breakthrough – not just in terms of Syria, but also in terms of a better international system, and in terms of Iran.


Obama has managed to insist on his red line on Syria’s chemical weapons, forcing the world to grapple with a new breach of international law, while also avoiding being dragged into Syria’s civil war. But he has also strengthened the impression that he will risk a great deal to stop the advance of WMDs (which presumably includes Iran’s nukes). After all, his announcement of an intent to strike Assad was a real risk to him and to the US. Now, there’s a chance that he can use that basic understanding of his Syria policy – and existing agreement on chemical weapons – to forge a potential grand bargain with Iran’s regime. If that is the eventual end-game, it would be historic.


*snip*


As for the role of Putin, I argued last week that it was the Russian leader who had blinked, the Russian leader who had agreed to enforce Washington’s policy, and that the best response was to welcome it with open arms. So it was another treat to hear the president say, in tones that are unmistakable:




.

“I welcome him being involved. I welcome him saying, ‘I will take responsibility for pushing my client, the Assad regime, to deal with these chemical weapons.’ ”




.

​

Meep meep.

 

[Synthaholic]

President Putin’s op-ed in the NYT today is fantastic. It’s a virtual end-zone twerk, as this botoxed former KGB hack brags about restoring a more peaceful world order, basks in the relatively new concept of Russia’s global stature, asserts obvious untruths – such as the idea that the rebels were behind the chemical attack of August 21 or that they are now targeting Israel – and generally preens.


Good. And whatever the American president can do to keep Putin in this triumphant mood the better. Roger Ailes was right. If the end-result is that Putin effectively gains responsibility and control over the civil war in Syria, then we should be willing to praise him to the skies. Praise him, just as the far right praises him, for his mastery of power politics – compared with that ninny weakling Obama. Encourage him to think this is a personal and national triumph even more than he does today. Don’t just allow him to seize the limelight – keep that light focused directly on him. If that also requires dumping all over the American president, calling him weak and useless and incapable of matching the chess master from Russia, so be it. Obama can take it. He’s gotten used to being a pinata.


All this apparent national humiliation is worth it. The price Russia will pay for this triumph is ownership of the problem. At some point, it may dawn on him that he hasn’t played Obama. Obama has played him.




Vladimir Putin, Meet Niccolo Machiavelli « The Dish

 

[TemplarKormac]

Meep Meep, Motherfuckers

“Had we rolled out something that was very smooth and disciplined and linear, they would have graded it well, even if it was a disastrous policy. We know that, because that’s exactly how they graded the Iraq war,” – President Obama.


Oh, snap!


It’s been awesome to watch today as all the jerking knees quieted a little and all the instant judgments of the past month ceded to a deeper acknowledgment (even among Republicans) of what had actually been substantively achieved: something that, if it pans out, might be truly called a breakthrough – not just in terms of Syria, but also in terms of a better international system, and in terms of Iran.


Obama has managed to insist on his red line on Syria’s chemical weapons, forcing the world to grapple with a new breach of international law, while also avoiding being dragged into Syria’s civil war. But he has also strengthened the impression that he will risk a great deal to stop the advance of WMDs (which presumably includes Iran’s nukes). After all, his announcement of an intent to strike Assad was a real risk to him and to the US. Now, there’s a chance that he can use that basic understanding of his Syria policy – and existing agreement on chemical weapons – to forge a potential grand bargain with Iran’s regime. If that is the eventual end-game, it would be historic.


*snip*


As for the role of Putin, I argued last week that it was the Russian leader who had blinked, the Russian leader who had agreed to enforce Washington’s policy, and that the best response was to welcome it with open arms. So it was another treat to hear the president say, in tones that are unmistakable:




.

“I welcome him being involved. I welcome him saying, ‘I will take responsibility for pushing my client, the Assad regime, to deal with these chemical weapons.’ ”




.

​

Meep meep.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I think I'm going to hurl.....

 

[SFC Ollie]

Synthia, Your presumptions in the OP have been destroyed. You are now trying to change your whole story just as your fearsome leader.

Fact: Obama wanted to attack
Fact: You tried to chastise the right for not supporting him.
Fact: Putin came up with a possible peaceful solution.
Fact: You now want to give that credit to Obama.
Fact: You still have your nose shoved up Obama's ass....

Carry on......

 

[dilloduck]

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.

regime change
Apparently Obama wants to keep the Assad regime in tact to assist with locating and removing WMDs.

 

[georgephillip]

The obvious question to the leftists
If you support The Obama's argument for action in Syria, why did you oppose GWB in Iraq
I mean other than you'd simply partisan bigots...?

Indeed. It's like 'dueling hypocrites'.

Iraq and Syria are part of the same Long War that Wesley Clark revealed in 2003:

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.'"

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What Clark doesn't reveal in the above quote he revealed to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! Namely his "Wiki" conversation of November 2003 was his second conversation with that senior officer; their first took place within days of the 911 terror attack and the same officer told Clark the Bush Administration had already decided to invade Iraq.

We can only wonder what a majority of US voters would have had to say about either plan around their Turkey Day tables in 2001?

 

[Synthaholic]

The Neoconservatives accused Saddam Hussein of having killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and maintained that the US had a duty, which trumped international law and the UN Security Council, to invade and overthrow him.



While it is true that Saddam Hussein was responsible for a lot of deaths, it wasn’t clear that he was killing any significant number of people 1992-2003. The killings had come as a result of the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), the internal war against separatist Kurds (1985-1989), and the repression of a massive Shiite uprising in March-May of 1991. The US was complicit in much of this, having encouraged Iraq and having allied with it during the Iran-Iraq War, which might have ended sooner otherwise.



The Reagan administration also used its clout at the UN to protect Iraq from sanctions for using chemical weapons on Iran, which encouraged the regime later to use them on the Kurds. George H. W. Bush called on Iraqis to rise up against Saddam in 1991, and when they did he left them twisting in the wind and allowed the regime to use helicopter gunships against them.


The pretext for the US war on Iraq was its alleged chemical and other weapons programs and stores, which did not exist and which UN inspectors such as Scott Ritter, a former Marine, explicitly said did not exist.


LINK

 

[dblack]

The obvious question to the leftists
If you support The Obama's argument for action in Syria, why did you oppose GWB in Iraq
I mean other than you'd simply partisan bigots...?

Indeed. It's like 'dueling hypocrites'.

Iraq and Syria are part of the same Long War that Wesley Clark revealed in 2003:

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.'"

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What Clark doesn't reveal in the above quote he revealed to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! Namely his "Wiki" conversation of November 2003 was his second conversation with that senior officer; their first took place within days of the 911 terror attack and the same officer told Clark the Bush Administration had already decided to invade Iraq.

Sad but true, I fear.

I recall how predictably disheartening it was to see Obama's cabinet choice after he was first elected. It was clear from then on that the neo cons would have their way after all.

 

[georgephillip]

The Neoconservatives accused Saddam Hussein of having killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and maintained that the US had a duty, which trumped international law and the UN Security Council, to invade and overthrow him.



While it is true that Saddam Hussein was responsible for a lot of deaths, it wasn’t clear that he was killing any significant number of people 1992-2003. The killings had come as a result of the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), the internal war against separatist Kurds (1985-1989), and the repression of a massive Shiite uprising in March-May of 1991. The US was complicit in much of this, having encouraged Iraq and having allied with it during the Iran-Iraq War, which might have ended sooner otherwise.



The Reagan administration also used its clout at the UN to protect Iraq from sanctions for using chemical weapons on Iran, which encouraged the regime later to use them on the Kurds. George H. W. Bush called on Iraqis to rise up against Saddam in 1991, and when they did he left them twisting in the wind and allowed the regime to use helicopter gunships against them.


The pretext for the US war on Iraq was its alleged chemical and other weapons programs and stores, which did not exist and which UN inspectors such as Scott Ritter, a former Marine, explicitly said did not exist.


LINK

"Danielle Pletka, vice president of the American Enterprise Institute, who has never been right about anything (and is now cropping up on corporate television again) wrote on January 15, 2003 in USA Today:

“As war with Iraq nears, the chorus of those claiming Saddam Hussein is contained, the United Nations process is working or the U.S. must address other, more pressing problems, grows louder.

"Some hate war or mistrust any expression of American power, but by far the largest group of naysayers is well intentioned. Their mantra, if they had one, would be: 'Why now?' . . . Why now?

"She says critic bring up al-Qaeda and North Korea as threats. She answers,
'But these are not reasons to defer action. They are reasons for the U.S. to act now and remove Saddam from power. Only then will al-Qaeda’s followers grasp that the U.S. is a power to be reckoned with, committed to destroying its enemies. Only then will North Korea step back and assess the fate of dictators committed to amassing weapons of mass destruction.'

"How’s that North Korea deterrence working out for you? And, didn’t the invasion of Iraq reinvigorate al-Qaeda to the point where it came into that country and is still blowing it up and is now ruling some of northern Syria?"

The Hubris of the Syria Interventionists | Informed Comment

The necon attempt to redraw the nearly hundred-year old borders of the Middle East requires the creation of an arc of instability stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf. Iraq has been effectively balkanized into Sunni, Shi'ite, and a Baghdad City states and it appears Syria is slated for similar destruction.

Whatever happened to Colin Powell's Pottery Barn rule?

 

[georgephillip]

Indeed. It's like 'dueling hypocrites'.

Iraq and Syria are part of the same Long War that Wesley Clark revealed in 2003:

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.'"

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What Clark doesn't reveal in the above quote he revealed to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! Namely his "Wiki" conversation of November 2003 was his second conversation with that senior officer; their first took place within days of the 911 terror attack and the same officer told Clark the Bush Administration had already decided to invade Iraq.

Sad but true, I fear.

I recall how predictably disheartening it was to see Obama's cabinet choice after he was first elected. It was clear from then on that the neo cons would have their way after all.

Obama is the best investment Goldman Sachs and the richest 1% of Americans ever made.

"In 2012, the incomes of the top 1 percent rose nearly 20 percent compared with a 1 percent increase for the remaining 99 percent."

Richest 1 percent of Americans are collecting biggest share of household income since the ?20s - Washington Post

 

[theHawk]

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's the matter, still can't find enough support for Obama's stupid war so you need Republican approval?

 

[georgephillip]

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's the matter, still can't find enough support for Obama's stupid war so you need Republican approval?

What if it's the same stupid war that Reagan, both Bushes, and Clinton were fighting?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Synthia, Your presumptions in the OP have been destroyed. You are now trying to change your whole story just as your fearsome leader.

Fact: Obama wanted to attack
Fact: You tried to chastise the right for not supporting him.
Fact: Putin came up with a possible peaceful solution.
Fact: You now want to give that credit to Obama.
Fact: You still have your nose shoved up Obama's ass....

Carry on......

Liek I said:
Partisan bigots.
No way to argue otherwise.