Right-Wingers: What's different about Syria?

[kaz]

That's why you are a piece of shit. You root against your own country.

Nonsense. Can you read? I am directly addressing this Administration...specifically Obama...I served this nation you boob, I am not wrecking it as Obama is and YOU cheer him on. I don't like the position Obama has put us all in.

You may go to the end of the line asswipe.

What is the ******* difference between Bush II and Obama?

.

One has an "R" after their name and the other has a "D"

 

[Synthaholic]

I thought Sherry gave a good answer, but I know it's not what you want to hear so it's not an answer. Tell me, which side in Syria should we be on? The ones who are infiltrated or straight out backing al Queada, or Assad? And then tell us why Democrats aren't supporting an attack on Syria either.....

We have no friends in Syria..........

We shouldn't be on either side.

Has nothing to do with punishing Assad for using CW.

And you high and mighty Assad has not been proven to do so.

Woa geeze here. No way.

And when it is proven?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Assad poses no immediate threat to us. It's as simple as that.

If we picked a fight with everyone who didn't like us or had an Army we'd be declaring war every damned day.


The reasons Obama wants to get rid of him aren't clear, but you can bet they aren't what he's claiming them to be.

How did Saddam pose an immediate threat to us?

Since the Arab league joined Bush in the coalition of the willing, I surmise that they considered Saddam an imminent threat to the entire middle east. Disruption of the WORLD oil supply is one helluva an immediate threat.

If he couldn't get away with invading the smaller country of Kuwait, how could he have been a threat to the entire Middle East? We easily decimated whatever offensive capability he had in Operation Desert Saber in the Gulf War. Whatever artillery wasn't destroyed was abandoned in the desert.

Gulf War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Synthaholic]

That was indeed Obumbler's red line. But in the process, Assad has slaughtered in the hundreds. Putting aside the mechanism of the slaughter, there have been thousands upon thousand slaughtered in Africa, with no official U.S. action to stop it.

So, it would seem to be that your concern, and Obumbler's concern, is that the mechanism of death of a thousand to two thousand is chemical weapons whereas the slaughter of maybe 200,000 or more in the Darfur region only involved starvation and regular weapons?

Am I the only one seeing something wrong with this picture you guys are trying to draw?

Chemical weapons are banned under the 1925 Geneva Conventions.

Conventional weapons are not.

What is so difficult to understand?

Ah. So it's the fact that SOME weapons are "illegal" that has you concerned? Not the number of people killed by whatever the weapons might be. 200,000+ by "legal" weapons is -- well -- ok.

But > 2,000 by "illegal" weapons is -- "bad."

Please.

YES! That's what this is all about.

Sending the signal that this is acceptable will only come back to haunt us and our troops overseas.

 

[Synthaholic]

How is it rooting AGAINST America to oppose the move by Obumbleer to have us commit acts of war without a valid or legal basis?

Dayum.

Synthia, take a big step back.

You sound totally ******* stupid when you offer such absurd posts.

He just admitted to rooting for Putin over Obama.

If you are rooting for a KGB head over the President Of The United States, then you are rooting against America.

It's as simple as that.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

And conversely if Iraq was wrong then: then Syria is wrong now. you can't hve it both ways and don't try to tell us that you liberal despots never screamed "Bush lied people died" Eat it and own it.

 

[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?

Sherry points out correctly that 17% approve military action. Your question then implies that 83% of the country is right winged.

Son, open your eyes. It's not just the right opposing this stupidity, a majority of the left does too.

Another failure to understand reality by progressives

In January, 2003, only 31% were in favor of invading Iraq.

Then came Powell's UN speech, with it's lies.

After that, support went up.

So highlighting 17% before the evidence is presented is premature.

 

[Synthaholic]

There are two differences.

1. The main one is that they oppose anything that Obama does.

2. The second is the American people are weary of war. After Bush's war fiascos, people are right to be suspicious, and opposed to it.

I think that Obama is wrong to be pushing for war in Syria. It is not our business. Things are unstable in the Mideast, and America can not constantly be fighting there.

I don't agree with your wording. I don't consider surgical strikes on airfields and perhaps military infrastructure to be 'war'.

If that was the case, Reagan declared 'war' on Quaddafi when he sent those missiles over at his tents in the 1980s, and Clinton declared 'war' on Afghanistan when he sent missiles at Osama bin Laden.

Here's a "surgical strike on an airfield:"

Do you have a point?

 

[Synthaholic]

You seem to have your mind made up, so why ask the questions?

Because I'm asking Right-Wingers for their opinion.

And my mind is only made up as far as being certain that we must answer this use of CW. And it must be a strong enough action that it gives Assad serious pause.

That could mean bombing things he needs to stay in power. It could mean freezing every asset he has around the world.

I don't know. I don't care. As long as it's substantial.

For me, I don't see any strategic gains to be made by attacking Assad and siding with Al Qaeda, we don't have a cease-fire with Syria that was breached, and Assad isn't harboring terrorists. However, my mind isn't made up.

This has nothing to do with 'strategic gains'. It has to do with upholding the ban on CW.

And yet you didn't support the war in Iraq.

Why was chemical weapons okie dokie for you then?

It wasn't proven that Saddam had CW in 2003.

And apparently the administration's lack of any proof led them to fabricate evidence (Powell, at the UN).

 

[Synthaholic]

All?

No.


Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

It was "all" of the sell-job (snow-job) to the American people.

Find a Bush speech that points to CW as the rationale for invasion.

You don't get to move the goalposts. The legislation is what matters.

Bullshit. The selling was what got us to the point of legislation.

Absent the selling, there would have only been Neo-Con support in Congress.

 

[Synthaholic]

There's plenty of difference between Syria and Iraq, Synthaholic.

1) Intelligence. Although it may have been false, we acted on what was at the time concrete intelligence that Saddam Hussein had WMD. Here in Syria, all we know is that some unknown force launched a chemical attack on Aleppo and the Gouta.

2) International consensus. President Bush had a full contingent of international support for an invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. As opposed to Bush, Obama has none.

3) Congressional approval. In 2002, the Iraq Resolution passed 77-23 in the Senate and 297-133 in the House. Ironically then, 40% (82 of 209) of Democrats in the House passed the resolution, while 58% (29 of 50) them passed it in the Senate. Rumors are now that Obama does not have enough votes in either house to approve a strike.

4) Those who ignore their past mistakes are doomed to repeat them. Apparently Obama didn't learn well enough from Bush the consequences of not looking before leaping. We as Conservatives, Libertarians, and Republicans learned from our mistakes. You Liberals and Democrats continue to and insist on making them as far as Syria is concerned.

This post is worth repeating, for those of us who still have 10-inch think titanium plated heads.

All your points came after Bush sold the war under false pretenses.

 

[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.

Why ask such a question when you are so ideologically leftist you lack the ability to understand the answers?

What would be your goals in striking Syria? To simply "punish" Assad for using CW? I think that is reasonable, although we are a few weeks too late for that, AND there is some real evidence that it wasn't Assad that used the CW but rather the Al Qaeda rebels.

A few weeks is "too late", but over 4 months of selling the Iraq War isn't?

Wingnuttery.

 

[Synthaholic]

Assad poses no immediate threat to us. It's as simple as that.

If we picked a fight with everyone who didn't like us or had an Army we'd be declaring war every damned day.


The reasons Obama wants to get rid of him aren't clear, but you can bet they aren't what he's claiming them to be.

How did Saddam pose an immediate threat to us?

Since the Arab league joined Bush in the coalition of the willing, I surmise that they considered Saddam an imminent threat to the entire middle east. Disruption of the WORLD oil supply is one helluva an immediate threat.

So, it WAS all about oil.

 

[Synthaholic]

Very interesting!

I thought it was the slant drilling, but I can see that possibility well.

Iraq Accuses Kuwait Of Slant Drilling And Stealing 300,000 Barrels Of Oil Daily

The Rumaila oil field is a super-giant oil field[2] located in southern Iraq, approximately 20 mi (32 km) from the Kuwaiti border.[3] The dispute between Iraq and Kuwait over alleged slant-drilling in the field was one of reasons for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.[4][5] This field was discovered by the Basrah Petroleum Company (BPC), an associate company of the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), in 1953.[6][7][8] Under Abd al-Karim Qasim, the oilfield was confiscated by the Iraqi government by Public Law No. 80 of 11 December 1961.[9] Since then, this massive oil field has remained under Iraqi control. The assets and rights of IPC were nationalised by Saddam Hussein in 1972, and those of BPC in 1975.[10] Rumaila is considered the third largest field in the world.[11]"

.

There is a great deal of truth in your post. Improper conclusions IMO, but at least they're based on factual evidence

There was also the issue of April Glaspie and Bush 41's ill-fated and rather idiotic attempt at Political Correctness by appointing a Female Ambassador to an Arab Ambassadorship.

Stupid. Beyond stupid. And why I was never, and will never, be a fan of any of the Bush boys.

The best thing that can be said about any of them is that they're not scum-of-the-Earth dimocraps. Other than that, they're pretty useless. Political Correctness is for children and College kids. And stupid ******* dimocraps (like there's any other kind) Not for real life. It gets people hurt and killed

Saddam totally misunderstood what Glaspie was saying to him and, IMO, she may have misrepresented what Baker had said to her.

Saddam invaded Kuwait shortly after her meeting with him.

He certainly didn't misunderstand Rumsfeld when he assured Saddam that he could continue to use gas against Iran.

 

[The T]

How is it rooting AGAINST America to oppose the move by Obumbleer to have us commit acts of war without a valid or legal basis?

Dayum.

Synthia, take a big step back.

You sound totally ******* stupid when you offer such absurd posts.

He just admitted to rooting for Putin over Obama.

If you are rooting for a KGB head over the President Of The United States, then you are rooting against America.

It's as simple as that.

No it isn't and was explained...you wanna make hay over it? Let's go son...

 

[Synthaholic]

Agreed. There are no good guys in Syria. I opposed Iraq, but at least they did have a shot with the Shiites of having a non-terrorist sponsoring government. In Syria, Assad is probably less bad than the opposition.

I don't see how it made sense for Assad to use chemical weapons either. He has plenty of conventional ones and chemical as WMDs would have a far higher chance of this sort of backlash. On the other hand, the rebels have both the means (Iran) and motivation to use them.

Call me crazy, but I don't trust John Kerry we have proof. Sorry.

Assad wouldn't use CW without approval or direction from Teheran.

Maybe Iran wanted this as a trial balloon. Maybe they want to use CW against us if we attack them, and be able to claim it's perfectly legit. They see a Republican Party that opposes everything Obama wants. It would be easy to guess that they would oppose him on this, also.

If 23 murdered 5 year-olds in Newtown couldn't get them to compromise with Obama, why would this? Especially since there is no oil involved.

"Assad wouldn't use CW without approval or direction from Teheran." - This is a logical fallacy called "begging the question." I am saying it's more logical the rebels did it, you're assuming the truth of your own position that it's Assad.

As for the gun in Newtown thing, how's making sure that lunatics are the only ones armed when they go postal working for you? How many schools, malls, movie theaters and need to get shot up with no one shooting back before we try a different solution?

Who shot back in Atlanta a few weeks ago?

Which "good person with a gun" solved that situation?

Assad is totally dependent upon Iran, with Russian support.

 

[The T]

How is it rooting AGAINST America to oppose the move by Obumbleer to have us commit acts of war without a valid or legal basis?

Dayum.

Synthia, take a big step back.

You sound totally ******* stupid when you offer such absurd posts.

He knows damned well what was meant. It's principle...but since he backs a POTUS with ZERO principle? He has to show his ass. Shows me he has ZERO principle himself.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Katzndogz]

How is it rooting AGAINST America to oppose the move by Obumbleer to have us commit acts of war without a valid or legal basis?

Dayum.

Synthia, take a big step back.

You sound totally ******* stupid when you offer such absurd posts.

He just admitted to rooting for Putin over Obama.

If you are rooting for a KGB head over the President Of The United States, then you are rooting against America.

It's as simple as that.

No it isn't and was explained...you wanna make hay over it? Let's go son...

It does raise an interesting question. IF America has become a country that is involving itself in a holy war to slaughter Christians, isn't it time to root against America?

I oppose the country that summarily executes the way the terrorists were shown executing Syrians. I oppose the country's fighters that rips the entrails out of dead victims and eats them. I oppose the murder of a 14 year old boy in front of his parents because he disrespected the prophet. I oppose killing Christians that won't convert and burning their churches. I oppose the use of chemical weapons and blaming someone else.

If America supports this, and allies itself with the very people who killed over 3,000 Americans, with the terrorists who killed Americans in Benghazi, then it follows that I must, absolutely must, oppose the evil that America has become.