A Political Irony

[TemplarKormac]

**** Obama forever if he starts a war in Syria that results in thousands of American casualties.

How many US casualties were there in Libya?

The thing people need to keep in mind is that the US did not start the Arab spring. The people of Egypt, Tunisia etc did it themselves...in some cases they needed help.

Although the OP might find the parallels to the US invasion of Iraq ironic - Iraq was not halfway through a revolution when the US stepped in.

The people of Egypt have flung their government into a ceaseless back and forth between democracy and totalitarianism. To say they "did it" is foolish.

 

[Saigon]

The people of Egypt have flung their government into a ceaseless back and forth between democracy and totalitarianism. To say they "did it" is foolish.

It's also obviously true.

 

[TemplarKormac]

TK -

Being purely objective, how would you say Obama's record of getting US troops out of the Middle East quagmires compares with that of Bush?

My my, how we always manage to move the goalposts. Just how many men have died under Obama's watch before he so heroically excised them from the battlefield? As compared to Bush?

During Obama's term leading up to this year 1,576 men died in Afghanistan in just 4 years. In all of the 7 years Bush was there, 575 died. All in all 6,000+ men have died, and we still haven't left Afghanistan. Either way you slice it, both of these men have blood on their hands. You would do better not to defend him. If he attacks Syria, he more likely than not trigger a war more deadlier that Iraq and Afghanistan put together.

True more men did die under Bush, but instead of ending both wars, Obama shifted his strategy to Afghanistan and let the Iraq War drag on for 2 more years.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The people of Egypt have flung their government into a ceaseless back and forth between democracy and totalitarianism. To say they "did it" is foolish.

It's also obviously true.

Prove it's true.

How does having a government under military rule speak to any accomplishment? You tell me.

 

[Saigon]

The people of Egypt have flung their government into a ceaseless back and forth between democracy and totalitarianism. To say they "did it" is foolish.

It's also obviously true.

Prove it's true.

How does having a government under military rule speak to any accomplishment? You tell me.

Who said it is an accomplishment?

I'm just saying that the entire process in Egypt has been something the Egyptian people have done - I'm not saying it is a good thing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's also obviously true.

Prove it's true.

How does having a government under military rule speak to any accomplishment? You tell me.

Who said it is an accomplishment?

I'm just saying that the entire process in Egypt has been something the Egyptian people have done - I'm not saying it is a good thing.

Oh so that's what you meant? So you didn't agree with him supporting the Arab Spring?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I personally don't care if there are chemical weapons being used. Let Syria fight their own war. How many more decades do we have to intervene in the Middle East before Americans realize it never turns out well? **** Obama, and anybody who truly thought he was any different than Bush. While I'm at it, **** anybody who thought Romney would be any different than the two of them as well.

Truth is, as Lysander Spooner once put it "A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years."

 

[Two Thumbs]

They will pretend to care until they are told to route for the war.

once called on the hypocrisy, they will stutter until the right answer, logical or not, comes from the dnc.

no amount of facts will change it.

Obama is a murderer, but it's ok.

 

[JoeB131]

As you are all no doubt aware, in a statement today by John Kerry, it appears that the US is considering going to war with Syria over it's "undeniable" use of chemical weapons against the people. As of now, at least 100,000 people have died at the hands of Bashar al Assad. But I must digress.

It was 10 years ago this past March when President George W. Bush set Operation Shock and Awe into motion against Iraq over suspected ties to al Qaeda, and possible possession of WMD. Not only did he invade, he was razed and accosted for doing it, and he continues to be attacked and criticized for starting that war as well as in Afghanistan to this very day by the left wing.

The irony? After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Republicans were swept in the 2006 mid-term elections. So, if Obama were to order a strike on Syria, one could surmise that the very same political implications would take place, of such would be wide-ranging, including a further loss of credibility on Obama's part, plus devastating losses by Democrats in the 2014 mid-terms. Not only did Obama invade Libya by sea, he attacked Yemen with drones. Now he wants to invade Syria?

It leads me to ask, who is the warmonger in chief now, liberals? Don't you find this to be the least bit ironic? Where are all of the anti-war Democrats now? Is it onlgokay if Obama does it?

Whatever the case reasoning may be, the political ironies and parallels are striking.

Besides using "REpublicans" instead of Democrats above, your so-called analysis is faulty, at best.

First, the reason why Bush was crucified over Iraq was that after Saddam was toppled, people found out that 1) There were no WMD's and 2) Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. So we got 5000 Americans and 100,000 to a million Iraqis killed for really, nothing.

ON the other hand, we have evidence that Assad not only has WMD's, but has used them.

Now, frankly, I think going into Syria will be a bad idea, because neither side is our friend.

But if we limit the thing to bombing, most people just aren't going to care that much. Just like a lot of people really didn't care about Kosovo when Clinton bombed that.

 

[Claudette]

Let the Arabs handle Syria.

The Arab League has men and material. Let them go in and straighten things out. If they don't feel the need than neither should we.

No need for America to spend any more blood and treasure in an ARAB country.

 

[Toro]

As you are all no doubt aware, in a statement today by John Kerry, it appears that the US is considering going to war with Syria over it's "undeniable" use of chemical weapons against the people. As of now, at least 100,000 people have died at the hands of Bashar al Assad. But I must digress.

It was 10 years ago this past March when President George W. Bush set Operation Shock and Awe into motion against Iraq over suspected ties to al Qaeda, and possible possession of WMD. Not only did he invade, he was razed and accosted for doing it, and he continues to be attacked and criticized for starting that war as well as in Afghanistan to this very day by the left wing.

The irony? After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Republicans were swept in the 2006 mid-term elections. So, if Obama were to order a strike on Syria, one could surmise that the very same political implications would take place, of such would be wide-ranging, including a further loss of credibility on Obama's part, plus devastating losses by Democrats in the 2014 mid-terms. Not only did Obama invade Libya by sea, he attacked Yemen with drones. Now he wants to invade Syria?

It leads me to ask, who is the warmonger in chief now, liberals? Don't you find this to be the least bit ironic? Where are all of the anti-war Democrats now? Is it onlgokay if Obama does it?

Whatever the case reasoning may be, the political ironies and parallels are striking.

There is certainly irony if you think Obama "invaded" Libya and wants to "invade" Syria.

Perhaps you should expand your news sources.

 

[Mac1958]

Let the Arabs handle Syria.

The Arab League has men and material. Let them go in and straighten things out. If they don't feel the need than neither should we.

No need for America to spend any more blood and treasure in an ARAB country.

Yup.

I think we've caused enough damage.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As you are all no doubt aware, in a statement today by John Kerry, it appears that the US is considering going to war with Syria over it's "undeniable" use of chemical weapons against the people. As of now, at least 100,000 people have died at the hands of Bashar al Assad. But I must digress.

It was 10 years ago this past March when President George W. Bush set Operation Shock and Awe into motion against Iraq over suspected ties to al Qaeda, and possible possession of WMD. Not only did he invade, he was razed and accosted for doing it, and he continues to be attacked and criticized for starting that war as well as in Afghanistan to this very day by the left wing.

The irony? After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Republicans were swept in the 2006 mid-term elections. So, if Obama were to order a strike on Syria, one could surmise that the very same political implications would take place, of such would be wide-ranging, including a further loss of credibility on Obama's part, plus devastating losses by Democrats in the 2014 mid-terms. Not only did Obama invade Libya by sea, he attacked Yemen with drones. Now he wants to invade Syria?

It leads me to ask, who is the warmonger in chief now, liberals? Don't you find this to be the least bit ironic? Where are all of the anti-war Democrats now? Is it onlgokay if Obama does it?

Whatever the case reasoning may be, the political ironies and parallels are striking.

Was Obama wrong to oppose the Iraq War?

 

[editec]

NO troops in Syria!​

 

[Redfish]

As you are all no doubt aware, in a statement today by John Kerry, it appears that the US is considering going to war with Syria over it's "undeniable" use of chemical weapons against the people. As of now, at least 100,000 people have died at the hands of Bashar al Assad. But I must digress.

It was 10 years ago this past March when President George W. Bush set Operation Shock and Awe into motion against Iraq over suspected ties to al Qaeda, and possible possession of WMD. Not only did he invade, he was razed and accosted for doing it, and he continues to be attacked and criticized for starting that war as well as in Afghanistan to this very day by the left wing.

The irony? After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Republicans were swept in the 2006 mid-term elections. So, if Obama were to order a strike on Syria, one could surmise that the very same political implications would take place, of such would be wide-ranging, including a further loss of credibility on Obama's part, plus devastating losses by Democrats in the 2014 mid-terms. Not only did Obama invade Libya by sea, he attacked Yemen with drones. Now he wants to invade Syria?

It leads me to ask, who is the warmonger in chief now, liberals? Don't you find this to be the least bit ironic? Where are all of the anti-war Democrats now? Is it onlgokay if Obama does it?

Whatever the case reasoning may be, the political ironies and parallels are striking.

Was Obama wrong to oppose the Iraq War?

How is voting "present" opposing ?

and lets keep the record straight about Iraq. Yes, it was a stupid mistake. But, the entire world believed that Saddam had WMDs and was ready to use them, the UN, UK, EU, France, germany, saudi arabia, japan, spain, france, canada, china, russia, et. al. Bush did not concoct a lie to justify going in. Also, democrats and republicans authorized and funded that fiasco. They ALL have blood on their hands.

Will we learn from viet nam, iraq, afghanistan, kosovo, korea, etc? probably not, we keep making the same stupid decisions that cost us american lives and billions of dollars.

WAKE UP PEOPLE, WE ARE NOT THE WORLD'S POLICE FORCE.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where are all of the anti-war Democrats now? Is it onlgokay if Obama does it?

Whatever the case reasoning may be, the political ironies and parallels are striking.

What's your evidence that there is widespread Democrat support for invading Syria?

 

[NYcarbineer]

As you are all no doubt aware, in a statement today by John Kerry, it appears that the US is considering going to war with Syria over it's "undeniable" use of chemical weapons against the people. As of now, at least 100,000 people have died at the hands of Bashar al Assad. But I must digress.

It was 10 years ago this past March when President George W. Bush set Operation Shock and Awe into motion against Iraq over suspected ties to al Qaeda, and possible possession of WMD. Not only did he invade, he was razed and accosted for doing it, and he continues to be attacked and criticized for starting that war as well as in Afghanistan to this very day by the left wing.

The irony? After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Republicans were swept in the 2006 mid-term elections. So, if Obama were to order a strike on Syria, one could surmise that the very same political implications would take place, of such would be wide-ranging, including a further loss of credibility on Obama's part, plus devastating losses by Democrats in the 2014 mid-terms. Not only did Obama invade Libya by sea, he attacked Yemen with drones. Now he wants to invade Syria?

It leads me to ask, who is the warmonger in chief now, liberals? Don't you find this to be the least bit ironic? Where are all of the anti-war Democrats now? Is it onlgokay if Obama does it?

Whatever the case reasoning may be, the political ironies and parallels are striking.

Was Obama wrong to oppose the Iraq War?

How is voting "present" opposing ?

and lets keep the record straight about Iraq. Yes, it was a stupid mistake. But, the entire world believed that Saddam had WMDs and was ready to use them, the UN, UK, EU, France, germany, saudi arabia, japan, spain, france, canada, china, russia, et. al. Bush did not concoct a lie to justify going in. Also, democrats and republicans authorized and funded that fiasco. They ALL have blood on their hands.

Will we learn from viet nam, iraq, afghanistan, kosovo, korea, etc? probably not, we keep making the same stupid decisions that cost us american lives and billions of dollars.

WAKE UP PEOPLE, WE ARE NOT THE WORLD'S POLICE FORCE.

Bush lied.

Tell all your rightwing pals around here that still defend the decision to invade Iraq that it was stupid.

Don't tell me. I knew it was stupid before it happened.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds in 1988.

Reagan was president.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just pretend Syria is in Africa, then we can ignore all the killing going on in Syria like we ignore all the killing that goes on in Africa decade after decade,

and not lose any sleep over it.

 

[Redfish]

Was Obama wrong to oppose the Iraq War?

How is voting "present" opposing ?

and lets keep the record straight about Iraq. Yes, it was a stupid mistake. But, the entire world believed that Saddam had WMDs and was ready to use them, the UN, UK, EU, France, germany, saudi arabia, japan, spain, france, canada, china, russia, et. al. Bush did not concoct a lie to justify going in. Also, democrats and republicans authorized and funded that fiasco. They ALL have blood on their hands.

Will we learn from viet nam, iraq, afghanistan, kosovo, korea, etc? probably not, we keep making the same stupid decisions that cost us american lives and billions of dollars.

WAKE UP PEOPLE, WE ARE NOT THE WORLD'S POLICE FORCE.

Bush lied.

Tell all your rightwing pals around here that still defend the decision to invade Iraq that it was stupid.

Don't tell me. I knew it was stupid before it happened.

repeating something that you and everyone else believes to be true is not lying. You give Bush way too much credit as a politician. I thought you considered him an idiot, but now you claim that he was such a great politician that he could convince the world to believe a lie???? Hmmmmm?

I did oppose the Iraq invasion when it began, I also opposed viet nam, kosovo, and afghanistan. Those fiascos cost us thousands of american lives and billions of dollars for NOTHING. Will we never learn?