Right-Wingers: What's different about Syria?

[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?

Yes, I did. You asked for the differences that would lead to such rationale. I listed them. Our intervention in Iraq didn't happen overnight. The Bush admin had to build their case. Obama has not been successful to this point in accomplishing that goal. BTW, if this is all designed for you to make RWer's look like hypocrites, be careful...because right now, the left doesn't have a leg to stand on in that regard if they are supporting this action.

I'll answer this in a bit, Sherry - gotta run.

 

[hortysir]

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)

Oil isn't even the difference this go-round.

I'd like to see this "proof" that Ass-hat did this

You will!

You were talking like it already existed
v
v
vv

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)

Waiting

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The REAL question about Syria, is for all you laughable lolberals.

Given your adamant opposition to the war when W was voicing the case for going after Saddam (and ever since), how is it possible you can support Obumbler's exhortations to start committing acts of war against Assad's regime?

 

[R.C. Christian]

These answers are simply all wrong.

It's a proxy war between the U.S. and it's terrorist allies vs. Russia and China which why it is so dangerous. The big players are coming too close to a hot war. At the end of the day the goal is Iran. Why Iran? Because Iran's influence negates the next step which is Eurasia not mention the U.S. pathetic attempt to hold on to the Bretton Wood's created petrodollar which has allowed the U.S. to spend money like a filthy hippie in a head shop while simultaneously terrorizing and killing millions on completely false pretenses just so American fat asses can keep pouring money into a failed consumer based economy led by filth like Obama and the people that pull his strings.

 

[PredFan]

The REAL question about Syria, is for all you laughable lolberals.

Given your adamant opposition to the war when W was voicing the case for going after Saddam (and ever since), how is it possible you can support Obumbler's exhortations to start committing acts of war against Assad's regime?

Both the liberals and the neocons support military action in Syria and all the leftys see is the GOP. I would call them blind liberals but that would be redundant.

 

[Misty]

I only support nuclear war. :/

Nuke em or leave them be. All or nothing.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

These answers are simply all wrong.

It's a proxy war between the U.S. and it's terrorist allies vs. Russia and China which why it is so dangerous. The big players are coming too close to a hot war. At the end of the day the goal is Iran. Why Iran? Because Iran's influence negates the next step which is Eurasia not mention the U.S. pathetic attempt to hold on to the Bretton Wood's created petrodollar which has allowed the U.S. to spend money like a filthy hippie in a head shop while simultaneously terrorizing and killing millions on completely false pretenses just so American fat asses can keep pouring money into a failed consumer based economy led by filth like Obama and the people that pull his strings.

^

Aside from the fact that I agree with almost nothing R.C. just said, I did enjoy his posting effort.

 

[kaz]

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?

Yes, I did. You asked for the differences that would lead to such rationale. I listed them. Our intervention in Iraq didn't happen overnight. The Bush admin had to build their case. Obama has not been successful to this point in accomplishing that goal. BTW, if this is all designed for you to make RWer's look like hypocrites, be careful...because right now, the left doesn't have a leg to stand on in that regard if they are supporting this action.

I'll answer this in a bit, Sherry - gotta run.

Ice cream truck?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Sometimes it is wise to walk away from a fight before it begins.

Granted, there are other times when it's not so wise.

Obviously, the tough part is to make the valid distinctions ahead of time.

Obumbler has yet to make his case.

I do not even dispute (or doubt) that it was Assad and his filthy regime who used the chemical weapons on innocent civilians. But, even if that is the base assumption, it still does not necessarily follow (logically) that we have any obligation to go lob missiles at his military sites. Again, Obumbler has failed to make the case.

 

[hortysir]

Yes, I did. You asked for the differences that would lead to such rationale. I listed them. Our intervention in Iraq didn't happen overnight. The Bush admin had to build their case. Obama has not been successful to this point in accomplishing that goal. BTW, if this is all designed for you to make RWer's look like hypocrites, be careful...because right now, the left doesn't have a leg to stand on in that regard if they are supporting this action.

I'll answer this in a bit, Sherry - gotta run.

Ice cream truck?

SpongeBob is on

 

[The T]

Yes, I did. You asked for the differences that would lead to such rationale. I listed them. Our intervention in Iraq didn't happen overnight. The Bush admin had to build their case. Obama has not been successful to this point in accomplishing that goal. BTW, if this is all designed for you to make RWer's look like hypocrites, be careful...because right now, the left doesn't have a leg to stand on in that regard if they are supporting this action.

I'll answer this in a bit, Sherry - gotta run.

Ice cream truck?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wassup, Synth?

Threw in the towel when you realized there's no measurable difference between Bush and Obama?

If Obama is no different than Bush, why aren't conservatives supporting him the way they supported Bush?

 

[The T]

I'll answer this in a bit, Sherry - gotta run.

Ice cream truck?

SpongeBob is on

 

[The T]

Sometimes it is wise to walk away from a fight before it begins.

Granted, there are other times when it's not so wise.

Obviously, the tough part is to make the valid distinctions ahead of time.

Obumbler has yet to make his case.

I do not even dispute (or doubt) that it was Assad and his filthy regime who used the chemical weapons on innocent civilians. But, even if that is the base assumption, it still does not necessarily follow (logically) that we have any obligation to go lob missiles at his military sites. Again, Obumbler has failed to make the case.

And their story changes moment to moment to the point the brass in the Pentagon are getting tired of issuing new strategies IF they have to follow whatever order Odumbo might issue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Whatever happened to old con argument that regimes like Syria, and circumstances such as regimes like Syria possessing WMD's,

constituted a threat to our 'ally' Israel?

We used to hear that line every other day. Have all you born again isolationists decided that Israel really isn't our ally?

 

[Ropey]

The REAL question about Syria, is for all you laughable lolberals.

Given your adamant opposition to the war when W was voicing the case for going after Saddam (and ever since), how is it possible you can support Obumbler's exhortations to start committing acts of war against Assad's regime?

^ The other side's point to the OP.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Wassup, Synth?

Threw in the towel when you realized there's no measurable difference between Bush and Obama?

If Obama is no different than Bush, why aren't conservatives supporting him the way they supported Bush?

And why aren't all you laughable lolberals vocally objecting to Obumbler's efforts?

 

[Vox]

Wassup, Synth?

Threw in the towel when you realized there's no measurable difference between Bush and Obama?

If Obama is no different than Bush, why aren't conservatives supporting him the way they supported Bush?

because conservative are smarter than libtards( who are a partisan brainwashed crowd) and learn from previous mistakes?

 

[kaz]

I do not even dispute (or doubt) that it was Assad and his filthy regime who used the chemical weapons on innocent civilians. But, even if that is the base assumption, it still does not necessarily follow (logically) that we have any obligation to go lob missiles at his military sites. Again, Obumbler has failed to make the case.

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.

 

[The T]

The REAL question about Syria, is for all you laughable lolberals.

Given your adamant opposition to the war when W was voicing the case for going after Saddam (and ever since), how is it possible you can support Obumbler's exhortations to start committing acts of war against Assad's regime?

Both the liberals and the neocons support military action in Syria and all the leftys see is the GOP. I would call them blind liberals but that would be redundant.

Perhaps the moniker 'Statist(s)' would lend a clue?