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?

What if a companies violation of a negotiated contract does not endanger the public? Should we just ignore them?

We've managed to ignore North Korean ceasefire violations since the '50's. Why didn't Bush invade North Korea?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

So Syria signed onto the agreement? Both parties now arguing originally agreed?

Stfu

So as far as you're concerned chemical weapons use is nobody else's business?

Why did we keep hearing about them when people like you were getting us into Iraq?

You are the one that brought up the treaty. Unless you can show me where it says we have to do something, you should shut up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

What if a companies violation of a negotiated contract does not endanger the public? Should we just ignore them?

We've managed to ignore North Korean ceasefire violations since the '50's. Why didn't Bush invade North Korea?

Didn't I already say I was wrong about Iraq even though I supported it based on what we knew at the time?

By the way, given that we are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Prolifieration Treaty, why isn't Obama going after North Korea for having nukes?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

What if a companies violation of a negotiated contract does not endanger the public? Should we just ignore them?

We've managed to ignore North Korean ceasefire violations since the '50's. Why didn't Bush invade North Korea?

Is this all you have? You can't manage the topic of discussion so all you have are anecdotes?

 

[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?

1. There are no enforcement provisions in the treaty, and it doesn't bind countries that have not signed it. That makes the answer to that question no.
2. See the no answer above.
3. See the no answer above.
4. See the no answer above.

Since your entire argument is based on someone believing something that is not true, you have no argument.

It wasn't an argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What if a companies violation of a negotiated contract does not endanger the public? Should we just ignore them?

We've managed to ignore North Korean ceasefire violations since the '50's. Why didn't Bush invade North Korea?

Is this all you have? You can't manage the topic of discussion so all you have are anecdotes?

You're the one who claimed that 1 ceasefire violation was enough to justify going back to war.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What if a companies violation of a negotiated contract does not endanger the public? Should we just ignore them?

We've managed to ignore North Korean ceasefire violations since the '50's. Why didn't Bush invade North Korea?

Didn't I already say I was wrong about Iraq even though I supported it based on what we knew at the time?

By the way, given that we are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Prolifieration Treaty, why isn't Obama going after North Korea for having nukes?

Maybe because just because you can doesn't mean you should.

In all of these cases.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

We've managed to ignore North Korean ceasefire violations since the '50's. Why didn't Bush invade North Korea?

Is this all you have? You can't manage the topic of discussion so all you have are anecdotes?

You're the one who claimed that 1 ceasefire violation was enough to justify going back to war.

You brought up Iraq despite the topic being about syria. I refutted your bullshit while shoving your nose in it.

YOU GOT NOTHING

 

[NYcarbineer]

So Syria signed onto the agreement? Both parties now arguing originally agreed?

Stfu

So as far as you're concerned chemical weapons use is nobody else's business?

Why did we keep hearing about them when people like you were getting us into Iraq?

You are the one that brought up the treaty. Unless you can show me where it says we have to do something, you should shut up.

Among those who supported it, nobody ever admits the Iraq War was unnecessary.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We've managed to ignore North Korean ceasefire violations since the '50's. Why didn't Bush invade North Korea?

Didn't I already say I was wrong about Iraq even though I supported it based on what we knew at the time?

By the way, given that we are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Prolifieration Treaty, why isn't Obama going after North Korea for having nukes?

Maybe because just because you can doesn't mean you should.

In all of these cases.

Gee, I am pretty sure I said that in the OP. How long did it take you to agree with me?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So as far as you're concerned chemical weapons use is nobody else's business?

Why did we keep hearing about them when people like you were getting us into Iraq?

You are the one that brought up the treaty. Unless you can show me where it says we have to do something, you should shut up.

Among those who supported it, nobody ever admits the Iraq War was unnecessary.

Kerry does. In fact, he denies he supported it now because it was so unnecessary.

I wonder if he will be denying he supported the war in Syria by 2015.

 

[tinydancer]

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?

So Syria signed onto the agreement? Both parties now arguing originally agreed?

Stfu

So as far as you're concerned chemical weapons use is nobody else's business?

Why did we keep hearing about them when people like you were getting us into Iraq?

There is nothing in the agreement about using CW in your own country on your own people.

The agreement only deals with war against opposing states.

 

[tinydancer]

So you see the *cough* rebels blew it.

If they'd been smart when they were setting this up, they should have used it on Turkey.

Now that Prince keeps coming up. How the hell did he manage to "whisk away victims' to Britain so very very quickly.

For those that don't know the Prince I'm talking about, he's the Saudi Prince in the thick of things providing money and supplies to the *cough* rebels.

 

[The T]

So you see the *cough* rebels blew it.

If they'd been smart when they were setting this up, they should have used it on Turkey.

Now that Prince keeps coming up. How the hell did he manage to "whisk away victims' to Britain so very very quickly.

For those that don't know the Prince I'm talking about, he's the Saudi Prince in the thick of things providing money and supplies to the *cough* rebels.

Is he the same Prince that whisked away the Saudi young'un that was injured in the Boston attack?

 

[Plasmaball]

So you see the *cough* rebels blew it.

If they'd been smart when they were setting this up, they should have used it on Turkey.

Now that Prince keeps coming up. How the hell did he manage to "whisk away victims' to Britain so very very quickly.

For those that don't know the Prince I'm talking about, he's the Saudi Prince in the thick of things providing money and supplies to the *cough* rebels.

Is he the same Prince that whisked away the Saudi young'un that was injured in the Boston attack?

The one who had nothing to do with the attack

 

[NYcarbineer]

Didn't I already say I was wrong about Iraq even though I supported it based on what we knew at the time?

By the way, given that we are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Prolifieration Treaty, why isn't Obama going after North Korea for having nukes?

Maybe because just because you can doesn't mean you should.

In all of these cases.

Gee, I am pretty sure I said that in the OP. How long did it take you to agree with me?

I've been saying it publicly for about 9 years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So Syria signed onto the agreement? Both parties now arguing originally agreed?

Stfu

So as far as you're concerned chemical weapons use is nobody else's business?

Why did we keep hearing about them when people like you were getting us into Iraq?

There is nothing in the agreement about using CW in your own country on your own people.

The agreement only deals with war against opposing states.

So it was none of our business that Saddam used chemical weapons to kill his own people?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are the one that brought up the treaty. Unless you can show me where it says we have to do something, you should shut up.

Among those who supported it, nobody ever admits the Iraq War was unnecessary.

Kerry does. In fact, he denies he supported it now because it was so unnecessary.

I wonder if he will be denying he supported the war in Syria by 2015.

So no Republicans/conservatives who supported the Iraq War have since admitted it was unnecessary,

despite our having proven that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So as far as you're concerned chemical weapons use is nobody else's business?

Why did we keep hearing about them when people like you were getting us into Iraq?

There is nothing in the agreement about using CW in your own country on your own people.

The agreement only deals with war against opposing states.

So it was none of our business that Saddam used chemical weapons to kill his own people?

The difference there is that we knew he used chemical weapons. WE KNEW SADDAM HIMSELF used chemical weapons. We have no waking clue as to who used them in Syria.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Among those who supported it, nobody ever admits the Iraq War was unnecessary.

Kerry does. In fact, he denies he supported it now because it was so unnecessary.

I wonder if he will be denying he supported the war in Syria by 2015.

So no Republicans/conservatives who supported the Iraq War have since admitted it was unnecessary,

despite our having proven that.

The hypocrisy in that statement lies in the fact that Democrats are now claiming this war in Syria is necessary. Despite the Republicans on this board proving otherwise.