Right-Wingers: What's different about Syria?

[Plasmaball]

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.

release me? huh? Wow what are you 2 cases deep?

you havent done anything. We've been down this road. You lie about your past in order to fit into the group you are talking with.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

im starting to think you take some sort of drug, like speed or something.
I cant think of any other excuse for how you act.


Welcher

 

[blackhawk]

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 the left feels there is no difference between Iraq and Syria why the push to go after Assad and Syria that you did not have with Sadam and Iraq?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

That.

It also proves that most on the right are partisan hacks.

 

[The T]

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

Iraq was "over there" in the vague general area we cal 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

Indeed. Nevermind the plethora of proper channels Bush went through...several UN Resolutions, and played them all out...YEARS of Weapons inspectors...(Nevermind the Russians got the weapons out into...the Bekaa Valley)...Stonewalled...Bush went immdediately to the people, to Congress after all of that...Made the case...ALL said yes (even Democrats) [Whom later denied it]...

There is no case here...except Odumbo trying to save his ass from the "RED LINE" comment made over a year ago...and his sinking ratings...TIME to appear to be a MAN he thinks...

WE aren't buying it...MOST sane among us see right through him and Kerry...

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

im starting to think you take some sort of drug, like speed or something.
I cant think of any other excuse for how you act.


. . . .

^ an obvious lie.

Nobody who reads your words could possibly believe that you are starting to think.

You clearly don't have the capacity for thought.

But you ARE adept at avoiding the topic as your ploddingly engage in pure deflection efforts.

 

[hortysir]

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

Iraq was "over there" in the vague general area we cal 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

Indeed. Nevermind the plethora of proper channels Bush went through...several UN Resolutions, and played them all out...YEARS of Weapons inspectors...(Nevermind the Russians got the weapons out into...the Bekaa Valley)...Stonewalled...Bush went immdediately to the people, to Congress after all of that...Made the case...ALL said yes (even Democrats) [Whom later denied it]...

There is no case here...except Odumbo trying to save his ass from the "RED LINE" comment made over a year ago...and his sinking ratings...TIME to appear to be a MAN he thinks...

WE aren't buying it...MOST sane among us see right through him and Kerry...

QFT!

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

im starting to think you take some sort of drug, like speed or something.
I cant think of any other excuse for how you act.


. . . .

^ an obvious lie.

Nobody who reads your words could possibly believe that you are starting to think.

You clearly don't have the capacity for thought.

But you ARE adept at avoiding the topic as your ploddingly engage in pure deflection efforts.

blah blah blah......Anyways im moving on, ive had my fun with you for today.
Have a good weekend Welcher, try not to welch to hard.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

im starting to think you take some sort of drug, like speed or something.
I cant think of any other excuse for how you act.


. . . .

^ an obvious lie.

Nobody who reads your words could possibly believe that you are starting to think.

You clearly don't have the capacity for thought.

But you ARE adept at avoiding the topic as your ploddingly engage in pure deflection efforts.

blah blah blah......Anyways im moving on, ive had my fun with you for today.
Have a good weekend Welcher, try not to welch to hard.

^ translation of the dishonest trite tripe of the pussy Princess Ball-less into standard English:

"I, Princess Ball-less, make baseless and dishonest ad hominems to deflect; and I deflect until I quit and run away. I sure as hell do not attempt to support my fallacious arguments once I, Princess Ball-less, have had them exposed."

It's understandable, Princess Ball-less. You have no valid argument to offer and you are a pussy. Amusing combo.

Run away now.

Run away.

Your fallacious argument has failed. Go find some more left-wing talking points to try.

Good luck. You'll need it. Obumbler is really fucking things up for you laughable lolberals.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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.'

There will always be finger-pointing in Washington. They can't help it, but let's not encourage it by furthering their frequent partisan bickering. The prospects and implications of war we face are more than enough of a challenge.

 

[The T]

I think this thread is pretty much at the prevue of the Mods/Admins...

Played out. OP (-1) FAILURE.

 

[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.'

There will always be finger-pointing in Washington. They can't help it, but let's not encourage it by furthering their frequent partisan bickering. The prospects and implications of war we face are more than enough of a challenge.

I cannot further their partisan bickering or do anything to end it.

They are vile rodents, these liberal Democratics.

They are incapable of being intellectually honest in any debate that threatens their desire for control. They have an orthodoxy and they usually keep to it.

What we see in the past week or two is very unusual. HALF of the liberal Democrat orthodoxy is having a dispute with a competing liberal Democrat orthodoxy.

On the one hand, a good liberal Democratic will stick with the Party "leader" to keep the unity thing going (or at least the face of unity). On the other hand, a good liberal Democratic will always and invariably oppose all war at all times regardless of reason or need. But if the dear leader himself is busy advocating for war, one of the two competing orthodoxies will have to give.

I'd enjoy watching the psychotic split in the liberal Democrat ranks if this wasn't such an urgent matter.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I like watching the peaceniks turn into warmongers now that they have the trigger...

 

[The T]

I like watching the peaceniks turn into warmongers now that they have the trigger...

The Hypocrisy tells me what I need to know after watching them every day for 35+ years of these idiots.

They think they pull the wool over our eyes...wrong answer.

They can't stand being on the wrong side of most everything.

(That's why they have to cheat and revise history while ignoring the truth...but then the Truth has no agenda).

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Hearings to impeach Obama would garner sympathy for him and turn attention away from the war.

 

[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.

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)

Iraq did have WMD's and used them in the war with Iran and on the Kurds. They had previously invaded Kuwait and the Israeli's bombed their nuclear facility before they could make any nukes.
The middle eastern countries joined forces with the US in deposing Saddam Hussein because they believed, with good cause, that Iraq posed a threat to the entire region.

So far, Syria has confined their war within their own borders and are not considered a threat to the rest of the region, and they sure as hell are not a threat to the US.

Israel will defend herself from Syria as they have over the past 20 years

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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:

Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria? Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won’t let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe. Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been “jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime”? Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region. On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom. Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.

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

^ worth a read.

 

[The T]

Hearings to impeach Obama would garner sympathy for him and turn attention away from the war.

Heard anything lately in the Lamestream Media of Benghazi Hearings? IRS? Fast And Furious?NSA Hearings?

WHAT DO YOU think this Politics of Diversion by Obama and his minions is all about?

As a matter of course...DIVERSION...from Obama and his RED LINE stated over a year ago..."OPERATION SAVE FACE"

That's what this asshole is putting us through.

I'm not yelling at you...just passionate.

 

[Clementine]

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.

We would be helping al Qaeda.

Funny that liberals demanded to see the chemical weapons before. Are you guys ready to admit that the delayed U.N. inspections allowed time to get the WMDs into Syria and they've probably been there this whole time?

With no regime change, what will be better if we strike?

Does Obama hope that the Muslim Brotherhood will be able to take control of Syria after we strike? Sure worked out well in Egypt. The MB has supported al Qaeda. The Syrian rebels are part of al Qaeda. Do you see where this is all going?

What is the end game if not to allow the radical Muslims to take control of Syrian and the chemical weapons? How will anyone be safer?

 

[hortysir]

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:

Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria? Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won’t let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe. Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been “jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime”? Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region. On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom. Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.

-- 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