Why is Syria different? My answer.

[The Rabbi]

I'm not.

Let me repeat the question:

If it's the exact same policy as Bush and Iraq, why aren't you supporting it?

Do you oppose Obama because he's black?

Now that you've been trapped into making a fool of yourself, again, your best bet might be to shut the fuck up. Cut your losses.

I'm nt the racist here, opposing Obama's policies because of the color of his skin. That's you.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

1 reason Iraq IS NOT syria

19 cease fire violations.


Yes Bush pushed WMD's. 1 cease fire violation was enough to go back. Having said that I do believe Bush totally fucked up the strategy.

 

[The Rabbi]

1 reason Iraq IS NOT syria

19 cease fire violations.


Yes Bush pushed WMD's. 1 cease fire violation was enough to go back. Having said that I do believe Bush totally fucked up the strategy.

We went in. We deposed Saddam. He was judged and executed by the Iraqi people. We organized the first free and fair elections in 50 years. Things were pretty stable when we left. We suffered very low casualties given the scope of the operation.
Where was the fuck up? Were there unforeseen circumstances? Yes. There always are.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

1 reason Iraq IS NOT syria

19 cease fire violations.


Yes Bush pushed WMD's. 1 cease fire violation was enough to go back. Having said that I do believe Bush totally fucked up the strategy.

We went in. We deposed Saddam. He was judged and executed by the Iraqi people. We organized the first free and fair elections in 50 years. Things were pretty stable when we left. We suffered very low casualties given the scope of the operation.
Where was the fuck up? Were there unforeseen circumstances? Yes. There always are.

We stayed 8 years too long. The babysitting or rebuilding bullshit needs to stop.

 

[The Rabbi]

1 reason Iraq IS NOT syria

19 cease fire violations.


Yes Bush pushed WMD's. 1 cease fire violation was enough to go back. Having said that I do believe Bush totally fucked up the strategy.

We went in. We deposed Saddam. He was judged and executed by the Iraqi people. We organized the first free and fair elections in 50 years. Things were pretty stable when we left. We suffered very low casualties given the scope of the operation.
Where was the fuck up? Were there unforeseen circumstances? Yes. There always are.

We stayed 8 years too long. The babysitting or rebuilding bullshit needs to stop.

We stayed for like 100 years in China. We've stayed for 70 years in Europe. And we saw what happened when we left afghanistan the first time.

 

[The T]

We went in. We deposed Saddam. He was judged and executed by the Iraqi people. We organized the first free and fair elections in 50 years. Things were pretty stable when we left. We suffered very low casualties given the scope of the operation.
Where was the fuck up? Were there unforeseen circumstances? Yes. There always are.

We stayed 8 years too long. The babysitting or rebuilding bullshit needs to stop.

We stayed for like 100 years in China. We've stayed for 70 years in Europe. And we saw what happened when we left afghanistan the first time.

And look at the basket case Iraq has become? AQ is on the loose...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

We went in. We deposed Saddam. He was judged and executed by the Iraqi people. We organized the first free and fair elections in 50 years. Things were pretty stable when we left. We suffered very low casualties given the scope of the operation.
Where was the fuck up? Were there unforeseen circumstances? Yes. There always are.

We stayed 8 years too long. The babysitting or rebuilding bullshit needs to stop.

We stayed for like 100 years in China. We've stayed for 70 years in Europe. And we saw what happened when we left afghanistan the first time.

What does any of that have to do with Iraq?

We have enemies? Devastate them then leave. If they're dumb enough to replace bad leaders with more like them, hit them again.

Fuck babysitting. Imagine where our children and grandchildren could be or what we could do in our own country if we spent all that treasure and effort at home.

I say bomb them to smithereens and come home. Period. It's why I applauded Obama on Libya at the time. I didn't agree wirh what he did but rather how he did it.

 

[Contumacious]

1 reason Iraq IS NOT syria

19 cease fire violations.


Yes Bush pushed WMD's. 1 cease fire violation was enough to go back. Having said that I do believe Bush totally fucked up the strategy.

We went in. We deposed Saddam. He was judged and executed by the Iraqi people. We organized the first free and fair elections in 50 years. Things were pretty stable when we left. We suffered very low casualties given the scope of the operation.
Where was the fuck up? Were there unforeseen circumstances? Yes. There always are.

Bullshit.


Saddam - a sunni - was summarily executed by the shiites and the US .

Iraq was substantially a secular country where women had many rights including the right to drive

Now Iraq is a radical shiite muslim country affiliated with Iran.

So shut the fuck up.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are a few threads popping up that accuse people like me of being hypocrites for not supporting an attack on Libya. I wanted to take the time to lay out my position,and explain why I am not the hypocrite.

I was young once. I remember cheering when US Navy pilots shot down two Libyan fighters that opened fire on them. I was proud of them, and even felt a degree of kinship because I was in the Navy at the time, and wanted to share some of that glory. I grew up since then, and learned that war is not a video game.

After 9/11 I fully supported the decision to go into Afghanistan. Believe it or not, I still do, even though we did a lot of things wrong. There really wasn't enough planning about what we would do when we got there, and how we would leave. There really wasn't time to think of all the things we needed to consider before we went in, but that doesn't mean no one shouldn't have asked the questions.

I also supported the invasion of Iraq. I, like Hillary, believe it was the thing to do given what we knew at the time. I really hate to say it, but she called that one right. The thing is, we really shouldn't have gone in, and we stayed way too long, but I did support it at the time. As a side note, the only reason we left was that Bush was smart enough to obligate the US to do so before he left office. That is the one thing he got right from the mess that he made there, and I refuse to give Obama credit for it.

Now we come to Syria. I am older and, I hope, wiser than I was when I supported the invasion of Iraq. I am definitely wiser than I was when I proudly wore t-shirt emblazoned with the words "US Navy 2, Libya 0."

We shouldn't go to war simply because the president tells us it is a good idea. The writers of the Constitution knew this, which is why they left the decision to wage offensive war entirely in the hands of Congress. It is never a good idea to let one man, no matter how good we think he is, send 300 million people to war. (Yes, I know about the WPR, I am talking about the Constitution and the intent of the framers, not what Congress did in 1973.)

We need to ask questions, and get solid answers, before we attack another country. So far, no one is giving anyone the answers we need.

• What will attacking Syria accomplish?
• What if it doesn't accomplish that goal?
• Is there evidence that Assad didn't approve of the use of chemical weapons?
• If he didn't, why are we attacking him?
• If he did, why are we attacking the entire country?
• Will killing more civilians really punish Assad?
• Given the fact that Obama opposed the legal ouster of the president of Honduras, why does he support the illegal ouster of the president of Syria?
• Are the people who are fighting Assad terrorists?
• Isn't it against US law to support terrorists, even if they are fighting a guy the president doesn't like?
• What provisions exist to make sure that the existing chemical weapons do not end up in the hands of terrorists if we throw Assad out?

There are dozens of questions I have, and they all deserve some sort of answer before we get involved in another war. I am way to old to get gung ho about a war simply because the guy that wants to start it won a Nobel.

I'll ask you what I asked elsewhere:

1. Do the prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons represent an enforcement obligation to the United States, since the US is a signatory to those prohibitions?

2. If yes, does the President have an obligation to attempt to execute enforcement?

3. If yes, does the President have an obligation to go to Congress if the threat to the US is not imminent?

4. If yes, what is Obama doing that is wrong?

Well your doing a great job justifying action in Iraq,a position you have never taken.


You must have evolved.

They are not rhetorical questions. I understand that saying that may go over your head.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1 reason Iraq IS NOT syria

19 cease fire violations.


Yes Bush pushed WMD's. 1 cease fire violation was enough to go back. Having said that I do believe Bush totally fucked up the strategy.

What if the cease fire violation was not a threat to our national security?

 

[R.C. Christian]

Everywhere we go we leave a larger sectarian mess than we first found.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

1 reason Iraq IS NOT syria

19 cease fire violations.


Yes Bush pushed WMD's. 1 cease fire violation was enough to go back. Having said that I do believe Bush totally fucked up the strategy.

What if the cease fire violation was not a threat to our national security?

Doesn't matter, those were the terms agreed to by all parties. If we don't have our word we have nothing.

 

[The Rabbi]

1 reason Iraq IS NOT syria

19 cease fire violations.


Yes Bush pushed WMD's. 1 cease fire violation was enough to go back. Having said that I do believe Bush totally fucked up the strategy.

We went in. We deposed Saddam. He was judged and executed by the Iraqi people. We organized the first free and fair elections in 50 years. Things were pretty stable when we left. We suffered very low casualties given the scope of the operation.
Where was the fuck up? Were there unforeseen circumstances? Yes. There always are.

Bullshit.


Saddam - a sunni - was summarily executed by the shiites and the US .

Iraq was substantially a secular country where women had many rights including the right to drive

Now Iraq is a radical shiite muslim country affiliated with Iran.

So shut the fuck up.

.

I realize that since you are a barking anti semite that makes you kind of stupid. But even you dont believe people had rights under Saddam. at least if they weren't from Tikrit.

 

[Intense]

1 reason Iraq IS NOT syria

19 cease fire violations.


Yes Bush pushed WMD's. 1 cease fire violation was enough to go back. Having said that I do believe Bush totally fucked up the strategy.

I agree, too. Substituted one Totalitarian State for another. Had we better protected Human Rights and Human interests, in the restructure, it might have actually meant something.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There are a few threads popping up that accuse people like me of being hypocrites for not supporting an attack on Libya. I wanted to take the time to lay out my position,and explain why I am not the hypocrite.

I was young once. I remember cheering when US Navy pilots shot down two Libyan fighters that opened fire on them. I was proud of them, and even felt a degree of kinship because I was in the Navy at the time, and wanted to share some of that glory. I grew up since then, and learned that war is not a video game.

After 9/11 I fully supported the decision to go into Afghanistan. Believe it or not, I still do, even though we did a lot of things wrong. There really wasn't enough planning about what we would do when we got there, and how we would leave. There really wasn't time to think of all the things we needed to consider before we went in, but that doesn't mean no one shouldn't have asked the questions.

I also supported the invasion of Iraq. I, like Hillary, believe it was the thing to do given what we knew at the time. I really hate to say it, but she called that one right. The thing is, we really shouldn't have gone in, and we stayed way too long, but I did support it at the time. As a side note, the only reason we left was that Bush was smart enough to obligate the US to do so before he left office. That is the one thing he got right from the mess that he made there, and I refuse to give Obama credit for it.

Now we come to Syria. I am older and, I hope, wiser than I was when I supported the invasion of Iraq. I am definitely wiser than I was when I proudly wore t-shirt emblazoned with the words "US Navy 2, Libya 0."

We shouldn't go to war simply because the president tells us it is a good idea. The writers of the Constitution knew this, which is why they left the decision to wage offensive war entirely in the hands of Congress. It is never a good idea to let one man, no matter how good we think he is, send 300 million people to war. (Yes, I know about the WPR, I am talking about the Constitution and the intent of the framers, not what Congress did in 1973.)

We need to ask questions, and get solid answers, before we attack another country. So far, no one is giving anyone the answers we need.

• What will attacking Syria accomplish?
• What if it doesn't accomplish that goal?
• Is there evidence that Assad didn't approve of the use of chemical weapons?
• If he didn't, why are we attacking him?
• If he did, why are we attacking the entire country?
• Will killing more civilians really punish Assad?
• Given the fact that Obama opposed the legal ouster of the president of Honduras, why does he support the illegal ouster of the president of Syria?
• Are the people who are fighting Assad terrorists?
• Isn't it against US law to support terrorists, even if they are fighting a guy the president doesn't like?
• What provisions exist to make sure that the existing chemical weapons do not end up in the hands of terrorists if we throw Assad out?

There are dozens of questions I have, and they all deserve some sort of answer before we get involved in another war. I am way to old to get gung ho about a war simply because the guy that wants to start it won a Nobel.

But you’ve not addressed the ‘difference’ between Libya and Syria.

Likely because there is none.

The problem is most on the right supported an attack on Libya in 2011, but now oppose an identical strike on Syria – that’s hypocrisy.

As a rightist perhaps you could address that hypocrisy, as it’s perfectly appropriate to infer that conservative opposition to a strike against Syria is purely partisan.

Indeed, conservative and republican opposition to military action against Syria is completely inconsistent with fundamental neo-con and rightist foreign policy dogma for at least the last 30 years – where Reagan, GHWB, and GWB all authorized military action against countries such as Libya, Granada, Lebanon, Panama, Iraq (Kuwait), Iraq again, and Afghanistan predicated on the need to punish or diminish the military power of a particular dictator or ruler on international law/humanitarian grounds.

We shouldn't go to war simply because the president tells us it is a good idea. The writers of the Constitution knew this, which is why they left the decision to wage offensive war entirely in the hands of Congress. It is never a good idea to let one man, no matter how good we think he is, send 300 million people to war. (Yes, I know about the WPR, I am talking about the Constitution and the intent of the framers, not what Congress did in 1973.)

This makes no sense.

First, no one is advocating ‘going to war,’ including the president.

Second, no one is in support of the limited strikes “simply because the president tells us it is a good idea.”

Last, if you’re aware of the WPA, then you know a given president is acting both legally and Constitutionally when authorizing military action during an initial 60-day period. Until such time as Congress either repeals the WPA, or a Federal court determines the Act un-Constitutional or the Executive’s interpretation of the Act un-Constitutional, the president’s actions are legal and presumed to be warranted.

If you believe the WPA conflicts with the original intent of the Framers, then advocate for its repeal. Until such time as the Act is repealed, however, you’re in no position to make the claim that any president is ‘violating’ the Constitution when invoking the authority granted him by the WPA.

Hypocrisy? You mean like the left claiming all wars are immoral and that Afghanistan and Iraq were bad but Libya and Syria are good? Like that?

 

[Contumacious]

We went in. We deposed Saddam. He was judged and executed by the Iraqi people. We organized the first free and fair elections in 50 years. Things were pretty stable when we left. We suffered very low casualties given the scope of the operation.
Where was the fuck up? Were there unforeseen circumstances? Yes. There always are.

Bullshit.


Saddam - a sunni - was summarily executed by the shiites and the US .

Iraq was substantially a secular country where women had many rights including the right to drive

Now Iraq is a radical shiite muslim country affiliated with Iran.

So shut the fuck up.

.

I realize that since you are a barking anti semite that makes you kind of stupid. But even you dont believe people had rights under Saddam. at least if they weren't from Tikrit.

Excuse the fuck out of me, Meir Kahane.

Saddam was a secular dictator.


In a tape released by Osama bin Laden in February 2003, Saddam Hussein is referred to as an ‘ignorant infidel.' The Iranian clerics hated Saddam so much that they repeatedly spurned peace initiatives to end the Iran-Iraq War, in the hopes continued fighting could topple his government. They intended to replace it with a Shi'ite dominated state modeled after their own. Eventually, they got smart enough to hire Ahmed Chalabi to convince the U.S. to topple Saddam for them.


Iraqi women enjoyed more rights than women in the surrounding Arab countries. Women could hold jobs and attend higher education, all with uncovered faces. In fact, women comprised 20% of the professional workforce.

 

[chikenwing]

I'll ask you what I asked elsewhere:

1. Do the prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons represent an enforcement obligation to the United States, since the US is a signatory to those prohibitions?

2. If yes, does the President have an obligation to attempt to execute enforcement?

3. If yes, does the President have an obligation to go to Congress if the threat to the US is not imminent?

4. If yes, what is Obama doing that is wrong?

Well your doing a great job justifying action in Iraq,a position you have never taken.


You must have evolved.

They are not rhetorical questions. I understand that saying that may go over your head.

They most certainly are,good God man you went over your own head!

 

[Sallow]

I dont think we need a barking mad lib to tell us what "neo-con" policy is.

Syria and Libya are two very different conflicts and very different times. And there was lots of opposition to action in Libya at the time from conservatives.

The question is why Democraps opposed Iraq but are supporting Syria. Ohyeah, a lot of them aren't. But Obama, who never met an action by Bush he could vote for, is now pursuing the exact same policy. Just not as well, of course.

Very different conflicts at very different times?

You can't make this stuff up.

Conservatives supported striking Libya..then..after Libya was struck..were against it.

Now?

They've come to accept this President doesn't have a problem with military strikes.

So that talking point is over.

So now they are against it..before they have to go back on being for it.

 

[Sallow]

Bullshit.


Saddam - a sunni - was summarily executed by the shiites and the US .

Iraq was substantially a secular country where women had many rights including the right to drive

Now Iraq is a radical shiite muslim country affiliated with Iran.

So shut the fuck up.

.

I realize that since you are a barking anti semite that makes you kind of stupid. But even you dont believe people had rights under Saddam. at least if they weren't from Tikrit.

Excuse the fuck out of me, Meir Kahane.

Saddam was a secular dictator.


In a tape released by Osama bin Laden in February 2003, Saddam Hussein is referred to as an ‘ignorant infidel.' The Iranian clerics hated Saddam so much that they repeatedly spurned peace initiatives to end the Iran-Iraq War, in the hopes continued fighting could topple his government. They intended to replace it with a Shi'ite dominated state modeled after their own. Eventually, they got smart enough to hire Ahmed Chalabi to convince the U.S. to topple Saddam for them.


Iraqi women enjoyed more rights than women in the surrounding Arab countries. Women could hold jobs and attend higher education, all with uncovered faces. In fact, women comprised 20% of the professional workforce.

Iran didn't start the war with Iraq.

And they weren't "hoping to topple" the Iraqi government.

They were hoping to survive.

 

[Sallow]

1 reason Iraq IS NOT syria

19 cease fire violations.


Yes Bush pushed WMD's. 1 cease fire violation was enough to go back. Having said that I do believe Bush totally fucked up the strategy.

I agree, too. Substituted one Totalitarian State for another. Had we better protected Human Rights and Human interests, in the restructure, it might have actually meant something.

Naw.

The problem with Iraq is that it's not really a country formed by a people.

It's a colony left by western powers.

No one in the region has a buy in to it's success.