Right-Wingers: What's different about Syria?

[TooTall]

If Obama is no different than Bush, why aren't conservatives supporting him the way they supported Bush?

because conservative are smarter than libtards( who are a partisan brainwashed crowd) and learn from previous mistakes?

And where do I find the thread where all the conservative Iraq war supporters around here admit that Iraq was a mistake and admit they were wrong to support it?

In fact, they can post that here, now.

We'll be able to tell by how many make that admission whether or not you're full of shit.

I will admit that Saddam Hussein was a wonderful human being that was misunderstood and never should have been hung by the neck until he was dead. Will you post that you agree with me?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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.

Can you imagine what he could do with a 3rd term? Saved by the bell.

 

[The T]

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.

WHY would HE be worried of their oil as WE have much of our own (IF not MORE) Obama has clamped down upon?
But it goes to show Obama's madness gone awry...
I understand the article, and your point...

I see this whole scenario as politics...and Obama is handling it badly. I dubbed it moments ago as "Operation Save My Ass From Obscurity"

-OR-

"Operation I have to be a MAN Now"

Take your pick.

 

[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.

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.

 

[The T]

You really think he might be taking orders from the House of Saud?

 

[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.

WHY would HE be worried of their oil as WE have much of our own (IF not MORE) Obama has clamped down upon?
But it goes to show Obama's madness gone awry...
I understand the article, and your point...

I see this whole scenario as politics...and Obama is handling it badly. I dubbed it moments ago as "Operation Save My Ass From Obscurity"

-OR-

"Operation I have to be a MAN Now"

Take your pick.

I don't know who advises Obumbler or what game he plays. But he IS the kind of guy who would pawn off a planned terrorist attack as a "mob reaction" to an unseen shitty movie.

He is almost psychotically incapable of telling the truth.

 

[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.

Can you imagine what he could do with a 3rd term? Saved by the bell.

Saved by the 22nd Amendment.

 

[SFC Ollie]

* 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..........

 

[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?

Yes, I did. You asked for the differences that would lead to such rationale. I listed them. Our intervention in Iraq didn't happen overnight. The Bush admin had to build their case. Obama has not been successful to this point in accomplishing that goal. BTW, if this is all designed for you to make RWer's look like hypocrites, be careful...because right now, the left doesn't have a leg to stand on in that regard if they are supporting this action.

OK, if you are arguing that the whole case has not yet been made, by Obama, by the inspectors, etc., then I agree.

But once the case has been made, and it's been proven that it was the government that used the gas, the Right-Wingers no longer have a reason to oppose, based on THEIR rationale for Iraq.

As for the Left:

Pretty lopsided.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

* 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..........

Assad is clearly not just our enemy, but an enemy of humankind.

So we must oppose Assad!

But

his internal enemies include a large faction of al qaeda.

To support his opponents would have us assist those who have already declared war against us!

Thus, we must support Assad. But that violates the prior premise.

Where there is no side worthy of our support, and two of our enemies are busy fighting with and killing each other, MAYBE our best move is to refrain from getting in the way.

And for all those who imagine that we maybe have some moral obligation to defend the innocents whom Assad has gassed or may soon be gassing, let me ask you: if that's the basis for our military involvement, then why are you not lamenting our failure to go into Darfur?

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

So you ask a question then you give the answer. Arguing with yourself is the only way you can win I guess.

No, I'm asking for Right-Wingers opinion, while giving you my opinion of the reasons.

I would love to see some answers that prove me wrong.

 

[The T]

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?

Yes, I did. You asked for the differences that would lead to such rationale. I listed them. Our intervention in Iraq didn't happen overnight. The Bush admin had to build their case. Obama has not been successful to this point in accomplishing that goal. BTW, if this is all designed for you to make RWer's look like hypocrites, be careful...because right now, the left doesn't have a leg to stand on in that regard if they are supporting this action.

OK, if you are arguing that the whole case has not yet been made, by Obama, by the inspectors, etc., then I agree.

But once the case has been made, and it's been proven that it was the government that used the gas, the Right-Wingers no longer have a reason to oppose, based on THEIR rationale for Iraq.

As for the Left:

Pretty lopsided.

ALL about PARTY with you, isn't it? WHY do you ignore the truth?

YER BOY is in ass-saving mode. Kerry is helping him and so are YOU (Or so YOU thought).

Give UP. Obama is toast.

 

[Synthaholic]

Did you support Bush's war in Iraq?

I'm not a Right-Winger, retard.

Get someone smart to read the OP to you.

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?

 

[Synthaholic]

The only people in politics who are consistently against military adventurism are in the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.

It's time you realized that there is essentially no difference between neocons and democrats on foreign policy.

This^^

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

 

[The T]

I'm not a Right-Winger, retard.

Get someone smart to read the OP to you.

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?

 

[The T]

The only people in politics who are consistently against military adventurism are in the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.

It's time you realized that there is essentially no difference between neocons and democrats on foreign policy.

This^^

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

A Changeable reference? Really?

*DUPE*

 

[Synthaholic]

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)

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".

 

[Synthaholic]

There's nothing different.

We should not have invaded Iraq and we should not bomb Syria.

I believe we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because it was pre-emptive.

In Syria, Assad has already used CW.

You see no difference?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I'm not a Right-Winger, retard.

Get someone smart to read the OP to you.

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?

Obumbler drew the red line. Then, in defiance of Obumbler's red line, Assad (it appears) used chemical weapons on innocent men, women and children. Now, if Obumbler DOESN'T make some military strike or similar "gesture" against Assad, he will have underscored (with a bright red line) how empty his words and threats are. So, NOT because we have any particular national interest in lobbing missiles at Assad's military sites, but because Obumbler is afraid to LOOK like the tool he is, he wants to commit acts of war contrary to the will of the American People and probably without Congressional consent.

Look up the word corrupt.

b : to degrade with unsound principles or moral values

-- Corrupt - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[IlarMeilyr]

There's nothing different.

We should not have invaded Iraq and we should not bomb Syria.

I believe we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because it was pre-emptive.

In Syria, Assad has already used CW.

You see no difference?

So had Saddam.