Right-Wingers: What's different about Syria?

[Synthaholic]

What is the difference in rationale between Iraq and Syria?

• Dictator/Tyrant has WMD capability
• Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
• Danger to Israel
• De-stabilize ME

Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

[/LIST]


Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.

No, it was about ridding that country of a murderous dictator who violated the UN sanctions on him over 17 times. The Iraqi's are now liberated and have free elections now. We did the right thing. So far, there is no proof that Assad has gassed his own people.

 

[Edgetho]

What is the difference in rationale between Iraq and Syria?

• Dictator/Tyrant has WMD capability
• Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
• Danger to Israel
• De-stabilize ME

Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.

If you are that incredibly stupid that you have to ask...... Then you are beyond help.

Try drugs. Lots of them.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

The only people in politics who are consistently against military adventurism are in the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.

It's time you realized that there is essentially no difference between neocons and democrats on foreign policy.

 

[Synthaholic]

[/LIST]


Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.

No, it was about ridding that country of a murderous dictator who violated the UN sanctions on him over 17 times. The Iraqi's are now liberated and have free elections now. We did the right thing. So far, there is no proof that Assad has gassed his own people.

So if there is proof, then you are all for a military response??

 

[Synthaholic]

What is the difference in rationale between Iraq and Syria?

• Dictator/Tyrant has WMD capability
• Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
• Danger to Israel
• De-stabilize ME

Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.

If you are that incredibly stupid that you have to ask...... Then you are beyond help.

Try drugs. Lots of them.

Answer the OP, dumbass.

 

[chikenwing]

What is the difference in rationale between Iraq and Syria?

• Dictator/Tyrant has WMD capability
• Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
• Danger to Israel
• De-stabilize ME

Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.

When framed in a simplistic way such as this ,no there isn't.So you were good with Iraq then right?

 

[Synthaholic]

What is the difference in rationale between Iraq and Syria?

• Dictator/Tyrant has WMD capability
• Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
• Danger to Israel
• De-stabilize ME

Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.

When framed in a simplistic way such as this ,no there isn't.So you were good with Iraq then right?

No, I wasn't, for the simple reason that it was never proven that Saddam had WMDs in 2003. It was all intel-based.

Not so in Syria, where chemicals have already been used.



But I am asking for Right-Wing rationales, not Liberals. Right-Wingers were perfectly fine with Bush's assertion of WMDs.

What's different now? (oil, oil, oil)

 

[Edgetho]

What is the difference in rationale between Iraq and Syria?

• Dictator/Tyrant has WMD capability
• Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
• Danger to Israel
• De-stabilize ME

Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.

If you are that incredibly stupid that you have to ask...... Then you are beyond help.

Try drugs. Lots of them.

Answer the OP, dumbass.

You really are that stupid, aren't you?

A shame. No wonder you're a libturd. But...... I guess somebody has to be the garbage collector.

For starters.... The 2003 Iraq War had a 75% approval while this one has a 17% approval.

But I'm sure that will change after the Stuttering Clusterfukk gives us his "Captain Kickass'' pep-talk Tuesday.

That's all you get until you prove to me you're back on your Meds

And thanks for the neg rep. Coming from a scumbag like you, I consider it a badge of honor

 

[Sherry]

* UN inspectors report completed
- Bush: Yes
- Obama: No

* UN Security Council Authorization
- Bush: Yes
- Obama: No

* Coalition of the Willing
- Bush: Yes
- Obama: No

* Authorization from Congress
- Bush: Yes
- Obama: No

* Goal of Regime Change:
- Bush: Yes
- Obama: No

 

[chikenwing]

What is the difference in rationale between Iraq and Syria?

• Dictator/Tyrant has WMD capability
• Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
• Danger to Israel
• De-stabilize ME

Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.

When framed in a simplistic way such as this ,no there isn't.So you were good with Iraq then right?

No, I wasn't, for the simple reason that it was never proven that Saddam had WMDs in 2003. It was all intel-based.

Not so in Syria, where chemicals have already been used.



But I am asking for Right-Wing rationales, not Liberals. Right-Wingers were perfectly fine with Bush's assertion of WMDs.

What's different now? (oil, oil, oil)

5000 dead Kurds in one day isn't proof?
Sadam used gas on several times and you know it.

Are you purposefully this Obtuse?

 

[Synthaholic]

If you are that incredibly stupid that you have to ask...... Then you are beyond help.

Try drugs. Lots of them.

Answer the OP, dumbass.

You really are that stupid, aren't you?

A shame. No wonder you're a libturd. But...... I guess somebody has to be the garbage collector.

For starters.... The 2003 Iraq War had a 75% approval while this one has a 17% approval.

But I'm sure that will change after the Stuttering Clusterfukk gives us his "Captain Kickass'' pep-talk Tuesday.

That's all you get until you prove to me you're back on your Meds

And thanks for the neg rep. Coming from a scumbag like you, I consider it a badge of honor

First, you are full of shit. It was nowhere near 75%. More like in the 50% range.

And I am asking why, from RW-ers.

 

[Edgetho]

What is the difference in rationale between Iraq and Syria?

• Dictator/Tyrant has WMD capability
• Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
• Danger to Israel
• De-stabilize ME

Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.

When framed in a simplistic way such as this ,no there isn't.So you were good with Iraq then right?

No, I wasn't, for the simple reason that it was never proven that Saddam had WMDs in 2003. It was all intel-based.

Not so in Syria, where chemicals have already been used.



But I am asking for Right-Wing rationales, not Liberals. Right-Wingers were perfectly fine with Bush's assertion of WMDs.

What's different now? (oil, oil, oil)

What oil, you stupid little twerp?

Syria produces less than .05% of the Worlds Oil.

There's just no hope for people like you.

Go wash some dishes at your day job in the Diner

 

[Synthaholic]

* UN inspectors report completed
- Bush: Yes
- Obama: No

* UN Security Council Authorization
- Bush: Yes
- Obama: No

* Coalition of the Willing
- Bush: Yes
- Obama: No

* Authorization from Congress
- Bush: Yes
- Obama: No

* Goal of Regime Change:
- Bush: Yes
- Obama: No

You are not answering my question, Sherry.

Why aren't RW-ers supporting a strike on Syria?

Obviously, they supported striking Iraq, otherwise Congressional Republicans wouldn't have authorized it.

If the UN inspector reports say that Assad used gas, will you support a strike?

 

[Wolfsister77]

[/LIST]


Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.

No, it was about ridding that country of a murderous dictator who violated the UN sanctions on him over 17 times. The Iraqi's are now liberated and have free elections now. We did the right thing. So far, there is no proof that Assad has gassed his own people.

That was not the reason we were given for getting into Iraq. It was WMD's. There was no proof of WMD usage and they did not go on and on about giving Iraqi's free elections and removing a brutal dictator. It was all about the WMD's that weren't there.

There is more proof of WMD use in Syria now then there was when we went into Iraq so what is the difference?

I'm not saying we should get involved in Syria and I was not for getting involved in Iraq. I am curious why one and not the other.

Another point is the boots on the ground. They aren't even talking about that now but did with Iraq.

The OP asks a good question. I think it's war fatigue and needing to take care of our own concerns here at home which is a very valid point.

But those that were gung ho for Iraq and are against Syria-what is the difference?

 

[Synthaholic]

When framed in a simplistic way such as this ,no there isn't.So you were good with Iraq then right?

No, I wasn't, for the simple reason that it was never proven that Saddam had WMDs in 2003. It was all intel-based.

Not so in Syria, where chemicals have already been used.



But I am asking for Right-Wing rationales, not Liberals. Right-Wingers were perfectly fine with Bush's assertion of WMDs.

What's different now? (oil, oil, oil)

What oil, you stupid little twerp?

Syria produces less than .05% of the Worlds Oil.

There's just no hope for people like you.

Go wash some dishes at your day job in the Diner

Exactly! That's why RW-ers aren't interested.

It was never about WMDs, it was always about controlling Iraq's oil. Syria proves it.

 

[Wolfsister77]

When framed in a simplistic way such as this ,no there isn't.So you were good with Iraq then right?

No, I wasn't, for the simple reason that it was never proven that Saddam had WMDs in 2003. It was all intel-based.

Not so in Syria, where chemicals have already been used.



But I am asking for Right-Wing rationales, not Liberals. Right-Wingers were perfectly fine with Bush's assertion of WMDs.

What's different now? (oil, oil, oil)

What oil, you stupid little twerp?

Syria produces less than .05% of the Worlds Oil.

There's just no hope for people like you.

Go wash some dishes at your day job in the Diner

But Iraq has a lot of oil.

 

[Edgetho]

Answer the OP, dumbass.

You really are that stupid, aren't you?

A shame. No wonder you're a libturd. But...... I guess somebody has to be the garbage collector.

For starters.... The 2003 Iraq War had a 75% approval while this one has a 17% approval.

But I'm sure that will change after the Stuttering Clusterfukk gives us his "Captain Kickass'' pep-talk Tuesday.

That's all you get until you prove to me you're back on your Meds

And thanks for the neg rep. Coming from a scumbag like you, I consider it a badge of honor

First, you are full of shit. It was nowhere near 75%. More like in the 50% range.

And I am asking why, from RW-ers.

Stupid little *****....

Popular opinion in the United States on the invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 2003[edit source | editbeta]
A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war

 

[boedicca]

What is the difference in rationale between Iraq and Syria?

• Dictator/Tyrant has WMD capability
• Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
• Danger to Israel
• De-stabilize ME

Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.

Did you support Bush's war in Iraq?

 

[Synthaholic]

You really are that stupid, aren't you?

A shame. No wonder you're a libturd. But...... I guess somebody has to be the garbage collector.

For starters.... The 2003 Iraq War had a 75% approval while this one has a 17% approval.

But I'm sure that will change after the Stuttering Clusterfukk gives us his "Captain Kickass'' pep-talk Tuesday.

That's all you get until you prove to me you're back on your Meds

And thanks for the neg rep. Coming from a scumbag like you, I consider it a badge of honor

First, you are full of shit. It was nowhere near 75%. More like in the 50% range.

And I am asking why, from RW-ers.

Stupid little *****....

Popular opinion in the United States on the invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 2003[edit source | editbeta]
A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war

That poll is from after we invaded. Americans always support troops on the ground.

Go find the February, 2003 poll, right before we invaded.


Dumbass.