Right-Wingers: What's different about Syria?

[IlarMeilyr]

the princess is lying, hahahahhahhahhahahahhaahahha

So, you are now going by the handle "Princess Ball-less?" Ok.

It's really not remarkable that you are lying. You have been consistently dishonest throughout your tenure at USMB.

Meanwhile, your fallacious false equivalence argument is abandoned by you completely, now? You'd rather try to go entirely with your usual dishonest deflection attempts? Given the inferior quality of your "argument," I will give you due credit: Smart move.

__________________
Edit: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7798211-post1.html

spin welcher spin

You have been. But mostly, as all can plainly see, you are deflecting like a motherfucker.

It's understandable when the "argument" you are trying to defend is so clearly fallacious and invalid.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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.

Build the Keystone. All we'll do is turn you on to hockey and Tim Hortons.

I've always been for Keystone. Obama's refusal to build it and not tap Alaska's oil reserve is further indication we are only interested in garnering as much oil as possible for ourselves. Instead of the oil going through the pipeline and overseas, we benefit from the cheaper prices of gas in that region.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

There's plenty of difference between Syria and Iraq, Synthaholic.

1) Intelligence. Although it may have been false, we acted on what was at the time concrete intelligence that Saddam Hussein had WMD. Here in Syria, all we know is that some unknown force launched a chemical attack on Aleppo and the Gouta.

2) International consensus. President Bush had a full contingent of international support for an invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. As opposed to Bush, Obama has none.

3) Congressional approval. In 2002, the Iraq Resolution passed 77-23 in the Senate and 297-133 in the House. Ironically then, 40% (82 of 209) of Democrats in the House passed the resolution, while 58% (29 of 50) them passed it in the Senate. Rumors are now that Obama does not have enough votes in either house to approve a strike.

4) Those who ignore their past mistakes are doomed to repeat them. Apparently Obama didn't learn well enough from Bush the consequences of not looking before leaping. We as Conservatives, Libertarians, and Republicans learned from our mistakes. You Liberals and Democrats continue to and insist on making them as far as Syria is concerned.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe8dEtRXiOk]Devo Race of Doom - YouTube[/ame]

 

[OKTexas]

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.

When framed in a simplistic way such as this ,no there isn't.So you were good with Iraq then right?

No, I wasn't, for the simple reason that it was never proven that Saddam had WMDs in 2003. It was all intel-based.

Not so in Syria, where chemicals have already been used.



But I am asking for Right-Wing rationales, not Liberals. Right-Wingers were perfectly fine with Bush's assertion of WMDs.

What's different now? (oil, oil, oil)

What's different, nothing your dear leader is proposing will accomplish a damned thing, especially about the WMD's, so what is the point?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

What does it say about the state of modern American "liberalism" and the Democrat Parody when their "argument" is so obviously fallacious and yet they cannot cobble a coherent valid argument together.

It's clear. They loathed President Bush. We get it.

We don't care, but we get it.

They attempted (in their grunting manner) to castigate any and all who accepted the Bush premises for going after Saddam's regime. They did it before, during and after Saddam was being ousted.

Now? They are unhappily divided. The more or less consistent ones are ok with opposing The ONE. But to many of them, they cannot dare publicly disagree with The ONE. So, they cobble together anything that might provide The ONE with political cover.

Meanwhile, no matter which "side" of that debate they take, they rally around one point: 'conservatives and Republicans are evil. Yeah. That's it.'

 

[Sherry]

What does it say about the state of modern American "liberalism" and the Democrat Parody when their "argument" is so obviously fallacious and yet they cannot cobble a coherent valid argument together.

It's clear. They loathed President Bush. We get it.

We don't care, but we get it.

They attempted (in their grunting manner) to castigate any and all who accepted the Bush premises for going after Saddam's regime. They did it before, during and after Saddam was being ousted.

Now? They are unhappily divided. The more or less consistent ones are ok with opposing The ONE. But to many of them, they cannot dare publicly disagree with The ONE. So, they cobble together anything that might provide The ONE with political cover.

Meanwhile, no matter which "side" of that debate they take, they rally around one point: 'conservatives and Republicans are evil. Yeah. That's it.'

Double D's...deflect and dither.

 

[Plasmaball]

So, you are now going by the handle "Princess Ball-less?" Ok.

It's really not remarkable that you are lying. You have been consistently dishonest throughout your tenure at USMB.

Meanwhile, your fallacious false equivalence argument is abandoned by you completely, now? You'd rather try to go entirely with your usual dishonest deflection attempts? Given the inferior quality of your "argument," I will give you due credit: Smart move.

__________________
Edit: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7798211-post1.html

spin welcher spin

You have been. But mostly, as all can plainly see, you are deflecting like a motherfucker.

It's understandable when the "argument" you are trying to defend is so clearly fallacious and invalid.

what am i defending? I've already stated we shouldnt have gone into Iraq Libya or Syria. I've been 100% the same since 2002 on these issues.

You have nothing welcher, im not playing your little game.

 

[The T]

spin welcher spin

You have been. But mostly, as all can plainly see, you are deflecting like a motherfucker.

It's understandable when the "argument" you are trying to defend is so clearly fallacious and invalid.

what am i defending? I've already stated we shouldnt have gone into Iraq Libya or Syria. I've been 100% the same since 2002 on these issues.

You have nothing welcher, im not playing your little game.

But yet HERE YOU ARE playah!

WE know where you stand...and it is in the slow line...there you are.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

spin welcher spin

You have been. But mostly, as all can plainly see, you are deflecting like a motherfucker.

It's understandable when the "argument" you are trying to defend is so clearly fallacious and invalid.

what am i defending? I've already stated we shouldnt have gone into Iraq Libya or Syria. I've been 100% the same since 2002 on these issues.

You have nothing welcher, im not playing your little game.

You are STILL defending the fallacy that there is an equivalence between us going into Iraq and the proposed move against Assad.

Your deflection efforts are almost as pathetic as your ability to use a syllogism.

You are playing a game. The problem is, I have exposed it for what it is (a pathetic fallacy) and you cannot handle the fact that you are left with nothing. Your fail is total.

 

[Plasmaball]

You have been. But mostly, as all can plainly see, you are deflecting like a motherfucker.

It's understandable when the "argument" you are trying to defend is so clearly fallacious and invalid.

what am i defending? I've already stated we shouldnt have gone into Iraq Libya or Syria. I've been 100% the same since 2002 on these issues.

You have nothing welcher, im not playing your little game.

But yet HERE YOU ARE playah!

WE know where you stand...and it is in the slow line...there you are.

what? i know you know where i stand. I just stated it.
stop drinking so much

 

[Plasmaball]

You have been. But mostly, as all can plainly see, you are deflecting like a motherfucker.

It's understandable when the "argument" you are trying to defend is so clearly fallacious and invalid.

what am i defending? I've already stated we shouldnt have gone into Iraq Libya or Syria. I've been 100% the same since 2002 on these issues.

You have nothing welcher, im not playing your little game.

You are STILL defending the fallacy that there is an equivalence between us going into Iraq and the proposed move against Assad.

Your deflection efforts are almost as pathetic as your ability to use a syllogism.

You are playing a game. The problem is, I have exposed it for what it is (a pathetic fallacy) and you cannot handle the fact that you are left with nothing. Your fail is total.

there is, you dont think there is, nothing is going to change your mind about the topic. So im not going to engage you in a meaningless venture.

Meanwhile calling you a welcher is highly amusing.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

what am i defending? I've already stated we shouldnt have gone into Iraq Libya or Syria. I've been 100% the same since 2002 on these issues.

You have nothing welcher, im not playing your little game.

You are STILL defending the fallacy that there is an equivalence between us going into Iraq and the proposed move against Assad.

Your deflection efforts are almost as pathetic as your ability to use a syllogism.

You are playing a game. The problem is, I have exposed it for what it is (a pathetic fallacy) and you cannot handle the fact that you are left with nothing. Your fail is total.

there is, you dont think there is, nothing is going to change your mind about the topic. So im not going to engage you in a meaningless venture.

Meanwhile calling you a welcher is highly amusing.

No. There isn't, of course, ANY equivalence between what we did against Saddam's regime and what Obumbler urges for us to do against Assad's regime. You probably don't even think there is. You lie too much to know for sure. But it doesn't matter. Your laughably pathetic attempts to draw the alleged equivalence are all fails.

You reside eternally in the realm of fail.

And your name calling remains irrelevant. You lie. That's understood.

 

[The T]

what am i defending? I've already stated we shouldnt have gone into Iraq Libya or Syria. I've been 100% the same since 2002 on these issues.

You have nothing welcher, im not playing your little game.

But yet HERE YOU ARE playah!

WE know where you stand...and it is in the slow line...there you are.

what? i know you know where i stand. I just stated it.
stop drinking so much

I see...lash out with that in which you know NOT.

Go on. Some of us have YOU by the short hairs and ain't lettin' go son.

BEG ME to let you off the hook...(And I'm Easy...It's Mr. Ilar you're gonna have a tough time with. By the way since YOU want to trade tits for tats? Got a JOB yet)?

 

[Plasmaball]

But yet HERE YOU ARE playah!

WE know where you stand...and it is in the slow line...there you are.

what? i know you know where i stand. I just stated it.
stop drinking so much

I see...lash out with that in which you know NOT.

Go on. Some of us have YOU by the short hairs and ain't lettin' go son.

BEG ME to let you off the hook...(And I'm Easy...It's Mr. Iylar you're gonna have a tough time with. By the way since YOU want to trade tits for tats? Got a JOB yet)?

you havent done anything thomas.
seriously put the bottle down before you hurt yourself....well anymore than you already have.

 

[dblack]

You'd think it would be left wingers most eager to tell us how Syria is different. "They did it too" is one weak assed excuse.

 

[Plasmaball]

You are STILL defending the fallacy that there is an equivalence between us going into Iraq and the proposed move against Assad.

Your deflection efforts are almost as pathetic as your ability to use a syllogism.

You are playing a game. The problem is, I have exposed it for what it is (a pathetic fallacy) and you cannot handle the fact that you are left with nothing. Your fail is total.

there is, you dont think there is, nothing is going to change your mind about the topic. So im not going to engage you in a meaningless venture.

Meanwhile calling you a welcher is highly amusing.

No. There isn't, of course, ANY equivalence between what we did against Saddam's regime and what Obumbler urges for us to do against Assad's regime. You probably don't even think there is. You lie too much to know for sure. But it doesn't matter. Your laughably pathetic attempts to draw the alleged equivalence are all fails.

You reside eternally in the realm of fail.

And your name calling remains irrelevant. You lie. That's understood.

okie dokie welcher...you keep thinking that.

 

[The T]

You'd think it would be left wingers most eager to tell us how Syria is different. "They did it too" is one weak assed excuse.

Hugely weak. It sounds like petulant children caught stealing out of their mother's purse..."But MOM! George did it too"!

Their mentality is sub-par, childish.

 

[The T]

what? i know you know where i stand. I just stated it.
stop drinking so much

I see...lash out with that in which you know NOT.

Go on. Some of us have YOU by the short hairs and ain't lettin' go son.

BEG ME to let you off the hook...(And I'm Easy...It's Mr. Iylar you're gonna have a tough time with. By the way since YOU want to trade tits for tats? Got a JOB yet)?

you havent done anything thomas.
seriously put the bottle down before you hurt yourself....well anymore than you already have.

Oh? Are YOU still here? I have done MORE with my life than YOU could ever dream of. YOU may piss off now. I release you.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Here's the lolberal "argument:" False equivalence.

Iraq was "over there" in the vague general area we call the mid-east. :: Hey! Syria is "over there" too!

See? They are exactly alike!

Wait. There's more! No. Really. There is more.

It turns out that Iraq was headed up by an evil scumbag who used chemical weapons on his own people. :: And and and, Syria has one of them, too!

So, of course, the two are EXACTLY alike!



The comparisons begin and end there. The liberal "argument" is not really designed to debate the wisdom (or lack thereof) of busting a move against Assad.

It is designed to attack conservatives and Republicans and anybody else who agreed or tolerated our action against Saddam in order to provide some political cover for The ONE.

Of course, to get right down to it, the answer is crystal clear. There actually is no equivalence between the Bush justification for urging military efforts against Saddam's regime and Obumbler's essentially unarticulated "justification" for urging military efforts against Assad's regime

 

[IlarMeilyr]

there is, you dont think there is, nothing is going to change your mind about the topic. So im not going to engage you in a meaningless venture.

Meanwhile calling you a welcher is highly amusing.

No. There isn't, of course, ANY equivalence between what we did against Saddam's regime and what Obumbler urges for us to do against Assad's regime. You probably don't even think there is. You lie too much to know for sure. But it doesn't matter. Your laughably pathetic attempts to draw the alleged equivalence are all fails.

You reside eternally in the realm of fail.

And your name calling remains irrelevant. You lie. That's understood.

okie dokie welcher...you keep thinking that.

I did not welsh, as you already know. And, you are just a liar.

But feel free to pretend otherwise.



Meanwhile, other than "asking" phony "questions," you have nothing substantive to offer ON the actual topic.