Right-Wingers: What's different about Syria?

[NYcarbineer]

She DID answer you question, but you refused to accept it.

I'll add to it. Iraq invaded one of our allies (Kuwait). We mobilized an incredible coalition and kicked their a$$es back to Iraq. That is what America IS, and that is what we SHOULD DO. We only stopped kicking their a$$es when Hussein capitulated. Part of his capitulation was that he promised to let UN weapons inspectors have free reign. This was part of us stopping the military action.

Wrong Iraq War, dumbass.

PGII was a continuation of PGI. Our nation was morally justified in waging war on Iraq AGAIN because Hussein reneged on the terms that he agreed to which ended the PGI.

Again, you are such an ideologue that you have no ability to form reason. None. Your blind love of your party, and the blinding hatred of anything conservative or republican, prevent any form of logic.

We weren't threatened in 1990.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If there's so many Al Qaeda in Syria, shouldn't we be invading just so we can fight them there instead of over here?

(...lol, you almost forgot about that excuse didn't you?)

 

[Synthaholic]

So you're implying that both Bush presidents were slinging horseshit when they both went on and on about Saddam using chemical weapons against his own people?

...not to mention every other Iraq war promoter who used the same line? ...in making the case for war?

It's amazing how these Right-Wingers never fully think through what they are about to type.

It's weird that this 'loophole' would suddenly get tossed into the mix. There was always emphasis on the fact that it was against his OWN people that implicitly made it even more egregious.

btw, I just read the original Geneva protocol and i'm not seeing the limitations.

That's why I called bullshit on AmazonTania.

 

[Meathead]

Wrong Iraq War, dumbass.

PGII was a continuation of PGI. Our nation was morally justified in waging war on Iraq AGAIN because Hussein reneged on the terms that he agreed to which ended the PGI.

Again, you are such an ideologue that you have no ability to form reason. None. Your blind love of your party, and the blinding hatred of anything conservative or republican, prevent any form of logic.

We weren't threatened in 1990.

are we now? Fair is fair.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Still wondering just which faction Synthia wants us to support in Syria...

You've got your choice.

1. Assad

2. Al Queada

3. Well, I'm not sure there is a 3...

Neither, dope.

Hey stupid, If you attack one then you are helping the other.....DUH!

 

[NYcarbineer]

PGII was a continuation of PGI. Our nation was morally justified in waging war on Iraq AGAIN because Hussein reneged on the terms that he agreed to which ended the PGI.

Again, you are such an ideologue that you have no ability to form reason. None. Your blind love of your party, and the blinding hatred of anything conservative or republican, prevent any form of logic.

We weren't threatened in 1990.

are we now? Fair is fair.

Who's claiming we are? The president has acknowledged there isn't an imminent threat. That's why he took it to Congress.

 

[SFC Ollie]

2001

Link?

Well, Bush has acknowledged in the past that Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11. For example, in response to a question on September 17, 2003, Bush stated: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th [attacks]."

Bush Says Saddam Hussein Was Not Connected to 9/11


I'm not digging through the BS to find what I heard in 2001....

 

[SFC Ollie]

If there's so many Al Qaeda in Syria, shouldn't we be invading just so we can fight them there instead of over here?

(...lol, you almost forgot about that excuse didn't you?)

So we should side with Assad?

 

[Meathead]

We weren't threatened in 1990.

are we now? Fair is fair.

Who's claiming we are? The president has acknowledged there isn't an imminent threat. That's why he took it to Congress.

Don't get your point, so did Bush.

You're a bit of a ditz.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If there's so many Al Qaeda in Syria, shouldn't we be invading just so we can fight them there instead of over here?

(...lol, you almost forgot about that excuse didn't you?)

So we should side with Assad?

Ask the people who used the above rationale for invading Iraq. I didn't.

 

[Meathead]

are we now? Fair is fair.

Who's claiming we are? The president has acknowledged there isn't an imminent threat. That's why he took it to Congress.

Don't get your point, so did Bush.

You're a bit of a ditz.

Again, your point?

 

[SFC Ollie]

If there's so many Al Qaeda in Syria, shouldn't we be invading just so we can fight them there instead of over here?

(...lol, you almost forgot about that excuse didn't you?)

So we should side with Assad?

Ask the people who used the above rationale for invading Iraq. I didn't.

Neither did I. I was in favor of going into Iraq...But not of the occupation...And had we not occupied the ME would look a lot different today....

 

[dblack]

This thread cracks me up. At BEST it's saying that Democrats are no different than Republicans.

 

[The T]

This thread cracks me up. At BEST it's saying that Democrats are no different than Republicans.

And BOTH their leaderships are NOT to be trusted.

They're in it for themselves and HOW they can get elected again...THEY all are painting themselves into a corner. The only way to play this game with Syria is NOT to play. BOTH had better hear this message.

The whole thing stinks. The OP thinks he's cute with the comparison.

 

[deltex1]

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.

The difference is Bush had blood in his mouth...Obabble has tears in his eyes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who's claiming we are? The president has acknowledged there isn't an imminent threat. That's why he took it to Congress.

Don't get your point, so did Bush.

You're a bit of a ditz.

Again, your point?

My point is that none of the pro-Iraq war people around here concede that Iraq war was unnecessary,

but those same people are at the forefront now insisting that an attack on Syria is unnecessary.

What made one necessary, and the other not?

 

[hortysir]

Still wondering just which faction Synthia wants us to support in Syria...

You've got your choice.

1. Assad

2. Al Queada

3. Well, I'm not sure there is a 3...

America?

That would be a switch

 

[SFC Ollie]

Don't get your point, so did Bush.

You're a bit of a ditz.

Again, your point?

My point is that none of the pro-Iraq war people around here concede that Iraq war was unnecessary,

but those same people are at the forefront now insisting that an attack on Syria is unnecessary.

What made one necessary, and the other not?

This is so simple I really gave you more credit...... Everyone knew that Saddam had WMD
Everyone Knew that Saddam was playing games with the UN directed inspectors.
Everyone knew that Saddam had his Anti aircraft guns locking on our planes.
If you read the Duelfer report you will find that Saddam was playing a game and that all his new factories were built so they could be shifted to WMD production with minimal time and effort.

On the other hand Who do we support in Syria?

Simple question....

 

[g5000]

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.

The difference is simple. We will fire less missiles at Syria than we fired in the first 60 seconds of the eight year long, $3 trillion Iraq war. We will not invade Syria with hundreds of thousands of US troops like we did Iraq.

Now was that so hard?

 

[SFC Ollie]

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.

The difference is simple. We will fire less missiles at Syria than we fired in the first 60 seconds of the eight year long, $3 trillion Iraq war. We will not invade Syria with hundreds of thousands of US troops like we did Iraq.

Now was that so hard?

To what purpose?