Where are the anti-war protesters for this impending invasion of Syria?

[JoeB131]

You aren't? Maybe you need to look up the rap sheet on Assad...

Syria | Amnesty International

Joe - your link is useless. I'm openly acknowledging I don't know much about Assad. Sending me a link about refugees because of a civil war isn't helpful. If you have some good info on Assad, by all means please post it. If you don't, don't waste my time on Amnesty International links about refugees...

It's not my job to do your research for you, guy.

Amnesty International is INTERNATIONALLY respected as an authority on such issues.

Assad is a really bad guy.

And we still shouldn't go to war with him because the Zionists want to make an example of him.

 

[Mertex]

Man you leftys aren't very bright are you?

It's called pointing out hypocrisy. "Hypocrisy" Google it.

And its called doing nothing and expecting others to do it for you

You mean like you?

Are you protesting? Well, then, I guess like you!

 

[Mertex]

Obama is an old 'community organizer'.
He's accustomed to bending the will of people towards his agenda.
It's really chapping his ass that it's not working this time around.

One thing is for sure;
You can bet that it will be one HELLUVA speech Tuesday night.
He will be smooth and suave. You can bet on it.
I just hope that (not too many) people fall for his snake-oil sales pitch

Old? I bet he's younger than you.

Several GOP leaders are on his side - I guess they fell for the snake-oil? Oh, wait a minute, they were the ones that were urging him to strike!

History does have a way of repeating itself.

Do you want a list of Democrats that urged George Bush to attack Iraq? It was a LOT more than two or three. The list includes the present (Kerry)and past (Clinton) Sec's of State as well as a large number of Senators and Representatives still serving in Congress.

Yeah, of course they urged Bush to attack Iraq. What you forgot to mention was that Bush lied to them and the whole country about WMDs. We were under the impression that Iraq was a threat - when all along Bush just wanted to be the big war President. Big difference.

 

[Billo_Really]

Millions of anti-war protesters marching 10 years ago? Where? The country gave overwhelming support for the wars in Afganistan and Iraq. The anti-war protest didn't start until the wars began to drag on and mission creep had set in.

The protests occurred two weeks before the war started.

...massive Iraq war protests of 15 February 2003. More than one million people marched in London that day as part of an international series of protests that embraced between six to ten million people and incorporated more than 60 countries and 800 cities.

Rally's occured in 16 cities across the nation that day. Over 400,000 showed up at the rally in Washington. The mainstream media gave it 1:20 on the news that night. The same amount of coverage it gave the "pro-war rally" in Washington. It treated both rally's "equally".


Does this look "equal" to you?


Anti-war rally in Washinton







Pro-war rally in Washinton






What am I fuckin' talking about, you said this didn't happen!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obama is an old 'community organizer'.
He's accustomed to bending the will of people towards his agenda.
It's really chapping his ass that it's not working this time around.

One thing is for sure;
You can bet that it will be one HELLUVA speech Tuesday night.
He will be smooth and suave. You can bet on it.
I just hope that (not too many) people fall for his snake-oil sales pitch

Old? I bet he's younger than you.

Several GOP leaders are on his side - I guess they fell for the snake-oil? Oh, wait a minute, they were the ones that were urging him to strike!

History does have a way of repeating itself.

Do you want a list of Democrats that urged George Bush to attack Iraq? It was a LOT more than two or three. The list includes the present (Kerry)and past (Clinton) Sec's of State as well as a large number of Senators and Representatives still serving in Congress.

The snag here is Syria and Iraq are not the same situation.

Unlike Bush with Iraq, Obama is not seeking authorization to launch a land invasion of Syria with American ground forces.

There is no ‘history’ to ‘repeat,’ because both issues are so utterly dissimilar.

 

[Billo_Really]

60% is barely more than HALF of America. That's your idea of ALL?!?

Are your comprehension issues deliberate?

Because you took the word "all", completely out of context.

Actually - that is the issue (perhaps you should read the thread title and opening post before weighing in?). This entire thread was about the hypocrisy of the liberals on this issue (well, 98% of them anyway). Notice people like Bodecia claim to be calling their representatives - but haven't showed even the slightest ounce of the seething hatred on USMB that they still display towards Bush?

Are you saying of that 60% above, liberals only make up 2% of that crowd?

I acknowledge there are some liberals in support of the President, but the majority of the left is against this war, just like they were 10 years ago.

Too bad you can't be that honest about the right!

I do not agree on military action in Syria. Where in the hell did you get that?!?

From what you're about to say next.

Until someone can give me the REAL reason we are going in to Syria, I oppose it.

Prosecution rests.

I've asked several times now for a real answer and all I've gotten are racist dirt-bags like JoeB blaming Jews (as if that tin foil hat theory makes any sense - if Jews were behind this, we'd be nuking Iran, not invading Syria).

You want to know the real reason we're going in there?

It is to open up the ME to the derrivitives market, so the big banks can maintain their profit margin.

That's why.

It's why we invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, soon to be Syria and why we're going into Iran.

I'm also not against it. As of right now, I'm waiting for someone to tell me WHY we need any action against Syria. I am not aware of Assad of having any history like Saddam Hussein. I'm not aware of him raping women by the thousands. I'm not aware if him torturing his citizens by the tens of thousands. I'm not aware if him invading another country on multiple occassions. I'm not aware of him doing any of the heinous acts that Saddam Hussien was guilty of. .

Spare me your lame Hussein rap!

Talk to the hand, if you wanna go there.

 

[P@triot]

It's not my job to do your research for you, guy.

"It's not my job to do your research for you" = "shit, I've got nothing"

Why post a link at all then since it's "not your job"? Just to waste people's time? just in hopes that they won't read it and people will assume you are "informed"?

As usual, you have no clue what you're talking about. You desperately threw up a link which had nothing to do with the issue at hand (typical). The issue is Assad - not refugees resulting from a Civil War.

 

[Camp]

Millions of anti-war protesters marching 10 years ago? Where? The country gave overwhelming support for the wars in Afganistan and Iraq. The anti-war protest didn't start until the wars began to drag on and mission creep had set in.

The protests occurred two weeks before the war started.

...massive Iraq war protests of 15 February 2003. More than one million people marched in London that day as part of an international series of protests that embraced between six to ten million people and incorporated more than 60 countries and 800 cities.

Rally's occured in 16 cities across the nation that day. Over 400,000 showed up at the rally in Washington. The mainstream media gave it 1:20 on the news that night. The same amount of coverage it gave the "pro-war rally" in Washington. It treated both rally's "equally".


Does this look "equal" to you?


Anti-war rally in Washinton







Pro-war rally in Washinton






What am I fuckin' talking about, you said this didn't happen!

I honestly had no recollections of the anti-war demonstrations. No excuse for not doing the research. I was so confident in my memory that I ignored the usual rule I follow about doing proper research. If I had looked into the topic I would have learned that the anti-war demonstations were the largest in history, bringing 10 milllion demonstators into the streets in hundreds of cities across the world. Over 100,000 showed up at the UN in NYC. I don't know how I missed it, but I did. I feel like a fool for my post and I apologize for the mistake.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

10 years ago when it was a repub demanding war, the liberals were marching by the millions. Now they say it's ok when their god obama destroys a nation that never did anything to us.

You got smeared on this thread, dufus.

 

[deltex1]

10 years ago when it was a repub demanding war, the liberals were marching by the millions. Now they say it's ok when their god obama destroys a nation that never did anything to us.

You got smeared on this thread, dufus.

They are protesting electronically from the house...they are unemployed...can't afford to travel...welcome to Obabbleville.

 

[Warrior102]

10 years ago when it was a repub demanding war, the liberals were marching by the millions. Now they say it's ok when their god obama destroys a nation that never did anything to us.

You got smeared on this thread, dufus.

Hardly - asswipe. You Libberhoids aren't burning American flags and spitting on soldiers yet - like your glory days. That'll come next week.
I hope they re-instate the draft. Maybe a tour or two on the front lines of Syria will help make a man out of you.

 

[P@triot]

60% is barely more than HALF of America. That's your idea of ALL?!?

Are your comprehension issues deliberate?

Because you took the word "all", completely out of context.

How can you take the word ALL out of context?

all adjective \ˈȯl\

Definition of ALL

1a : the whole amount, quantity, or extent of <needed all the courage they had> <sat up all night>
b : as much as possible <spoke in all seriousness>

2: every member or individual component of <all men will go> <all five children were present>

3: the whole sum of <all the angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles>

Actually - that is the issue (perhaps you should read the thread title and opening post before weighing in?). This entire thread was about the hypocrisy of the liberals on this issue (well, 98% of them anyway). Notice people like Bodecia claim to be calling their representatives - but haven't showed even the slightest ounce of the seething hatred on USMB that they still display towards Bush?

Are you saying of that 60% above, liberals only make up 2% of that crowd?

I acknowledge there are some liberals in support of the President, but the majority of the left is against this war, just like they were 10 years ago.

Too bad you can't be that honest about the right!

I was going to accuse you of being a disingenuous prick but now I realize you truly are one of the great mental midgets of our era. I said that 98% of liberals are extreme hypocrites (on all issues of course - but we are specifically talking here about how they are not outraged about Obama's war mongering like they were about Bush). Now, you somehow draw the conclusion that means I believe 2% of the 60% "in favor" (according to your stats - which I question now that you've proven yourself to be genuinely retarded) are liberals based on the fact that I said 98% are hypocrites?!? A bit slow on math are we? Percentages confuse you much?

I never made any reference to the over all percentage of Americans in favor of action against Syria. What I did say, was that of all liberals, 98% favor it. My 98% figure has nothing to do with your 60% figure.

Rottweiler: I do not agree on military action in Syria. Where in the hell did you get that?!?

Billo_Really: From what you're about to say next.

Rottweiler: Until someone can give me the REAL reason we are going in to Syria, I oppose it.

Billo_Really: Prosecution rests.

Holy Jesus, I'm rolling on the floor. I ask you where you get that I "support" the war. You point to a statement where I say I oppose it, and then you finish with "prosecution rests"?!?



Prosecution is more incompetent than the O.J. trial!!!!

First you you make the outrageously stupid comment that the word ALL was "taken out of context". Then you make the outrageously stupid comment that because 98% of liberals are hypocrites who support war on Syria, I believe only 2% of liberals make up the total 60% of Americans who supposedly support the war on Syria. And now you make the outrageously stupid comment that I support the war because I clearly stated I oppose the war.

(it just hit me - maybe you don't know what the word oppose means? I guess it's possible considering you didn't know what the word all meant )

I've asked several times now for a real answer and all I've gotten are racist dirt-bags like JoeB blaming Jews (as if that tin foil hat theory makes any sense - if Jews were behind this, we'd be nuking Iran, not invading Syria).

You want to know the real reason we're going in there?

It is to open up the ME to the derrivitives market, so the big banks can maintain their profit margin.

That's why.

It's why we invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, soon to be Syria and why we're going into Iran.

Another libtard tin foil hat boy. We went into Afghanistan to "open up the derrivitives market"? Really? You seriously are unaware of what occurred on September 11, 2001?

(By the way asshat - the word is derivatives - the fact that you can't even spell it is further evidence that you don't know what the fuck you are taking about and literally just pulling shit out of your ass)

I am not aware of Assad of having any history like Saddam Hussein. I'm not aware of him raping women by the thousands. I'm not aware if him torturing his citizens by the tens of thousands. I'm not aware if him invading another country on multiple occassions. I'm not aware of him doing any of the heinous acts that Saddam Hussien was guilty of.

Spare me your lame Hussein rap!

Talk to the hand, if you wanna go there.

Why - because you hate facts? You just humiliated yourself with one of the most embarrassing posts in USMB history. It is not hyperbole in the least to call you one of the great mental midgets of our era. I tried to have a real discussion with you, but when you say "ALL" Americans support something and then back that up with 60% or when you claim your proof that I support a war with Syria is a quote where I say I oppose the war, well... you're just proving yourself to be an idiot and a waste of time.

 

[paulitician]

I think this sums up many on the Left perfectly...

 

[Katzndogz]

Anti war protesters are anti American protesters. Now that the focus of the war is basically anti American itself, they cannot protest that.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
Assad is a really bad guy.

.

You don't know him and neither do i. Hell with assad. Our foreign policy should be MYOFB.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I think this sums up many on the Left perfectly...

HAHAHAHA. That's it eggzaklie. If obozo said we have to eat canned dog sh!t, the left would say cool.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

10 years ago when it was a repub demanding war, the liberals were marching by the millions. Now they say it's ok when their god obama destroys a nation that never did anything to us.

You got smeared on this thread, dufus.

No one talks that way to me!!!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
Unlike Bush with Iraq, Obama is not seeking authorization to launch a land invasion of Syria with American ground forces.
.

HAHAHA. The ground troops will come later, you idiot. In the meantime, your god obozo will kill 500,000 by bombing.

All wars are about profiteering.

 

[JoeB131]

It's not my job to do your research for you, guy.

"It's not my job to do your research for you" = "shit, I've got nothing"

Why post a link at all then since it's "not your job"? Just to waste people's time? just in hopes that they won't read it and people will assume you are "informed"?

As usual, you have no clue what you're talking about. You desperately threw up a link which had nothing to do with the issue at hand (typical). The issue is Assad - not refugees resulting from a Civil War.

Are you saying Assad has nothing to do with the millions of refugees? Seriously?

Or is your Obama Derangement Syndrome at such an advanced stage that you'll embrace anyone Obama doesn't like?

 

[Mertex]

10 years ago when it was a repub demanding war, the liberals were marching by the millions. Now they say it's ok when their god obama destroys a nation that never did anything to us.

You got smeared on this thread, dufus.

They are protesting electronically from the house...they are unemployed...can't afford to travel...welcome to Obabbleville.

Ha,ha, just shows how out-of-date some conservatives really are!

"The very rich are different from you and me,” F. Scott Fitzgerald observed, eliciting the famous rejoinder from Ernest Hemingway, “Yes, they have more money.” Today he might add that they are apt to be Democrats, often exceedingly liberal Democrats, fond of talking of “fairness” and equity as they rake in what seems like vast sums of money, and spend immense sums on themselves. Confronted with tales of their zillionaire populists, liberals claim (a) that the way that they vote counts for more than the way they spend money; and (b) that many great names in political history have lived well and had money themselves. The last point is true, but there is a difference in degree and in kind that has only come recently. Let us consider the facts.
Lifestyles of the Rich and Liberal | The Weekly Standard



Read and Weep:

Liberal states vs conservative states, which are better? | The Godless Paladin