Why is Syria different? My answer.

[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?

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

Then why aren't you applying that to the international conventions against the use of chemical weapons? We signed onto them too. What about our 'word' there?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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!

If they are rhetorical, then they are statements, not questions.

Is it indisputable that we have obligations to enforce chemical weapons violations?

 

[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.

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.

Which totalitarian state rules Iraq today? As far as I know everyone in power there was elected.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

I never said Iran did.

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

Bullshit

"To Khomeini however, Iraq threatened the existence of not
just Iran, but the Islamic Revolution. He viewed the war as an ideological fight for
survival. As a result, Iran responded with tremendous passion. Saddam’s attack fit
perfectly into Khomeini’s ideological and theological view that Islam must oppose and
defeat its secular foes. Thus Saddam failed to recognize his limited war was Khomeini’s unlimited war. "

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Playing the secular card again? Saddam went in and out of being a Muslim.
Quoting Lew Rockwell. How white of you.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Playing the secular card again? Saddam went in and out of being a Muslim.
Quoting Lew Rockwell. How white of you.

I sent you a picture of my junk for your viewing pleasure.

As you can see its 12" long, the skin is brown and my pubes are kinky.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Playing the secular card again? Saddam went in and out of being a Muslim.
Quoting Lew Rockwell. How white of you.

I sent you a picture of my junk for your viewing pleasure.

As you can see its 12" long, the skin is brown and my pubes are kinky.

.

You'll have to try that with some of the other skinheads on this board. I dont' swing that way. Not that there's anything wrong with it, of course.

 

[OriginalShroom]

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.

I don't know where you get the idea that Conservatives supported Obama's actions in Libya..

I sure as hell didn't. I was opposed to that action for some of the same reasons I am opposed to this..

It's a civil war, an internal matter that is not overflowing the borders and threatening the U.S.

As far as Assad using gas on his own people.. Still no proof that he did, only Obama's and Kerry's word. Both are proven liars so I don't trust them to be telling the truth.

I am of the mind that this whole thing is no more than a "Look Squirrel" in an attempt to distract from the various scandals plaguing this administration.

 

[OriginalShroom]

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.

Bullshit. You've swallowed yet another lie.

Most Conservatives I knew were against Obama's actions in Libya.

 

[OriginalShroom]

.

Libyan bombing 'unconstitutional', Republicans warn Obama | World news | theguardian.com
Libyan bombing 'unconstitutional', Republicans warn Obama

US public opinion split as Republicans claim Obama's use of military force in Libya is 'an affront to our constitution'

Republican members of Congress are claiming the conflict in Libya is unconstitutional because Barack Obama failed to seek Congressional approval.

President Obama sent a letter defending the Libya intervention to members of Congress on Monday in an effort to quell a growing rebellion over his failure to consult the Senate and the House of Representatives before embarking on the third major military action of his presidency.

In the letter, Obama attempted to address criticism that he had failed to either brief or discuss his decision in detail with both Democrats and Republicans. Under the US constitution, Congressional approval is required for declarations of war.

Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, a Republican on the House armed services committee, was among members who argued that military action in Libya was unconstitutional. He told the Hill magazine: "The United States does not have a King's army. President Obama's unilateral choice to use US military force in Libya is an affront to our constitution."

 

[R.C. Christian]

Some of the things done in Labia were exceeded what congress signed on for. I'm pretty sure attacking the late Colonel Q and allowing the rebel faction to sodomize him with a gun was not on the list of expectations.

 

[Plasmaball]

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?

oh you mean like the right crying about how we needed to do something about Libya till we actually did and then whine about obama being stupid.

or the fact that the righties whined about how Obama needed to go through congress in order to strike. He did and then they claimed he was weak for backing down and going through congress?

The simple idea that anyone should take the right seriously is laughable.
On the same thought, anyone who takes the left seriously should be laughed at.

for the most part the partisan hacks are whiniing the loudest again and ruining things.

Like you for instance.

 

[Sherry]

If you're Obama, and your beliefs change, then you've evolved...if you're a conservative, and your beliefs change (as QW reasonably described his process), then you're a hypocrite. I get why some on the left are ignoring it and trying to redirect the argument, but most others see through such diversionary tactics.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Some of the things done in Labia were exceeded what congress signed on for. I'm pretty sure attacking the late Colonel Q and allowing the rebel faction to sodomize him with a gun was not on the list of expectations.

When did Congress vote on Libya?

In Official Notification Two Days Later, President Obama Alerts Congress the US Joined a War - ABC News

In Official Notification Two Days Later, President Obama Alerts Congress the US Joined a War

Mar 21, 2011 6:07pm

Amidst claims by members of Congress that they were insufficiently consulted, and ensuing White House pushback, President Obama Monday officially notified congressional leaders that at “approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya.”

The notification was part of the president’s “efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution,” but given complaints from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and the fact that the war started two days ago, it had the effect of a rather discomforting “While You Were Out…” note.

 

[The T]

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.

I don't know where you get the idea that Conservatives supported Obama's actions in Libya..

I sure as hell didn't. I was opposed to that action for some of the same reasons I am opposed to this..

It's a civil war, an internal matter that is not overflowing the borders and threatening the U.S.

As far as Assad using gas on his own people.. Still no proof that he did, only Obama's and Kerry's word. Both are proven liars so I don't trust them to be telling the truth.

I am of the mind that this whole thing is no more than a "Look Squirrel" in an attempt to distract from the various scandals plaguing this administration.

Indeed. HEY LOOK! Something shiny! Liberals will flock right to it and belive anything their masters tell them.

 

[Vox]

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

Likely because there is none.

there is a humongous difference - Syria is extremely important to Russia as they worry about their natural gas pipe monopoly ( and THE MONEY it brings to putin's bank account) will end with Assad demise.
And Russia is going to protect it's MONEY.

Libya was irrelevant even if putin supported Gaddafi - but not to the extent to get involved in the war with United States

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

Excellent post & thread killer!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

So?

Likely because there is none.

There is plenty of difference. Doesn't really matter though, Obama was just as wrong to attack Libya.

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.

Even if that was true, which it isn't, how is it hypocrisy to recognize the difference between attacking a country without allies and attacking a country which has powerful allies, two of which have publicly stated a willingness to engage in military action to defend Assad? Especially when one of the Assad's allies has threatened to declare open war on the US if we get involved?

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.

What the fuck is a rightist?

By the way, McCain, the guy who effectively speaks for the warhawks that no longer control the republican party, supported action in Libya, and action in Syria. Paul, on the other hand, opposes both. Perhaps you can explain who it is that supported Libya and opposes it now.

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.

Gee, the Republican Party is changing. Haven't you been paying attention to all the whining from the hierarchy of the party about how libertarians have taken over? How is it inconsistent for younger people to have a different view of the world than old fogeys? Or is this a case of you complaining about the old fogeys not getting their way, and then complaining when the old fogeys don't get their way?

Wouldn't that make you the partisan hack hypocrite?

This makes no sense.

I am sorry, I wasn't trying to explain things to idiots, I was simply defining my position.

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

War is armed conflict between two, or more, nations, or states, or different groups within a nation or state. If we engage in military action in another country we are going to war. You can pretend that the universe is run on unicorn farts, but the rest of us have to live in the real world.

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

I didn't actually say they were, did I? I said we shouldn't go to war simply because someone says it is a good idea. To date, all Obama has come up with in support of going to war in Syria is that it would be a good idea to make sure people know that using WMDs is going to hurt the people who use them.

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.

Want to point out where I ever said anything different?

By the way, the War Powers Resolution is facially a violation of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. I don't need a judge to tell me the sky is blue before I can see the truth.

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.

Interesting, your only defense of the WPR is that it has not been ruled unconstitutional, which, according to you, makes it constitutional. In reply, I will bring up the doctrine of a law being facially unconstitutional. I suggest you go read Brown v Board of Education, Brandenburg v Ohio, and US v Lopez.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

A super thoughtful OP. I believe we should strike Syria but not engage in an invasion. If we can knock out the chemical stock, all the better. If Russia keeps supplying Assad with sarin, then all the better for the USA to publicize it to the world.

Doing nothing in this case is not the right or best thing.

Doing nothing is rarely the best thing, or the right thing, but we cannot solve all the world's problems. Recognizing that is the first step of wisdom.

 

[The T]

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.

A super thoughtful OP. I believe we should strike Syria but not engage in an invasion. If we can knock out the chemical stock, all the better. If Russia keeps supplying Assad with sarin, then all the better for the USA to publicize it to the world.

Doing nothing in this case is not the right or best thing.

Doing nothing is rarely the best thing, or the right thing, but we cannot solve all the world's problems. Recognizing that is the first step of wisdom.

Indeed. The answer out of this Congress must be NO.