There will be secession and Civil War in the US --- if we invade Syria

[JoeB131]

All the rationalizations used by the Right Wing to justify Bush's adventure in Iraq (the presence of WMD, tyrannical dictator who makes war on his own people with chemical weapons) .

You mean all those "right wing" democrats who had called for action against saddam for years and who voted to authorize our actions there?

big difference between supporting sanctions and limited strikes and committing us to an invasion and decade of occupation.

But you supported the effort so much you just went down to that recruiter and signed right up, right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wow! The r-wing fascists are really getting bent over Syria.

Last I checked, the left wing fascists are the one's wanting to launch cruise missiles at a bunch of suicidal rag heads to keep the oil flows running.

Sounds to me like you're the bad guy here.

Last anyone with a brain checked, fascism is rightwing, not left.

fascism that employs socialism is statist left-wing authoritarian government

 

[Geaux4it]

Wow! The r-wing fascists are really getting bent over Syria.

If you think we should get involved in Syria, then go enlist in the military and demand to be one of the first ones sent over there you war whore!

Not me... I say **** Syria. But the GOP has been screaming for Obama to do something in Syria for almost a year now. But if I know Obama, he will do the right thing and make the right moves to counter Assad thus Assad will be disposed within 6 months after Obama takes action. President Obama is brilliant that way.

WTF... Brilliant? Like the way he left Libya and Egypt?

Please....

-Geaux

 

[Kondor3]

"...big difference between supporting sanctions and limited strikes and committing us to an invasion and decade of occupation..."

Do you mean like President Lyndon B. Johnson (D)(Texas)'s little sortie into a flyspeck called Vietnam?

Repukes and Dummycrats have BOTH gotten us into The Shit repeatedly within living memory.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is so.

We have witnessed BHO end Iraq, wind down Afghanistan, and commit very limited resources to Libya and Egypt, and now possibly Syria.

Maybe has learned something the other dumb asses did not.

I will give Reagan credit in that the ran like a red-assed baboon out of Lebanon when the Marine barracks were blown up rather than commit tens of thousands of troops to an indecisive war there.

 

[Katzndogz]

Republucans haven't wanted obama to do anything about Syria. They've just been making fun of his silly red line comment.

It looks like what little support obama had is collapsing. Britian just pulled out. The UN won't approve any action. The last is that obama hasn't decided to do anything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Better go talk to John McCain, if you need marching orders, son.

 

[Geaux4it]

Republucans haven't wanted obama to do anything about Syria. They've just been making fun of his silly red line comment.

It looks like what little support obama had is collapsing. Britian just pulled out. The UN won't approve any action. The last is that obama hasn't decided to do anything.

Thanks god.. Every time Obummer decides something it cost me $$$$$

Don't he have a tee time or something?

-Geaux

 

[Kondor3]

So, now we hear that Brit lawmakers want to wait until the UN chemical-weapons evaluation team finishes its on-site investigation and releases its report.

Well, after the Great US-Led Iraqi Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction Bug-a-Boo, which the Brits (bless 'em) went along with, I guess we can't blame 'em for lookin' at our own analysis with a withering eye.

Then again, the UN could take another thousand years to issue its report.

Meanwhile, there's France, which, amongst the US, Britain, and France, seemed the Hottest-to-Trot, to hit the Syrian Assad Regime over this.

Has there been a substantive French reaction to today's events... the failure to secure UN permission... the balking of the English Parliament until the UN report is issued?

Fearless Leader can probably still proceed if the French keep their nerve; as a matter of fact, out of jealousy, the Brits will probably jump back in, if they see that it might become a US-French operation.

But, if the French are out of it until the UN team issues its report, then, that only leaves Turkey as a possible sizable partner and flak-diffusing second party to the act, and I doubt that'll be enough.

Curiouser and curioser...

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the UN is balking, then I doubt Obama has grounds to do this under international law.

It will open the Obamanians to the same war criminal charges as the Bushies.

 

[Kondor3]

If the UN is balking, then I doubt Obama has grounds to do this under international law.

It will open the Obamanians to the same war criminal charges as the Bushies.

A lack of UN support isn't much of an impediment, when you stop to think about it.

But, going-in unilaterally and alone would be a little more difficult to sell than if we had partners in the intervention.

And if BOTH of the Big Guns (Britain, France) back out, then, either Fearless Leader proceeds on his own, or he stands down.

It could go either way at this point ( Go, or No-Go ) at this point... IMHO.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If he cannot get the Brits, the French, and the Turks, BHO will not do it.

 

[Geaux4it]

If he cannot get the Brits, the French, and the Turks, BHO will not do it.

We best hope

-Geaux

 

[JoeB131]

"...big difference between supporting sanctions and limited strikes and committing us to an invasion and decade of occupation..."

Do you mean like President Lyndon B. Johnson (D)(Texas)'s little sortie into a flyspeck called Vietnam?

Repukes and Dummycrats have BOTH gotten us into The Shit repeatedly within living memory.

You mean a sovereign country that asked us for assistance in battling down an insurgency?

Legally, there wasn't an issue. We had in fact assisted sovereign governments in putting down rebellions in Greece, Turkey, the Philippines, probably a bunch of other countries. Whether it was a good idea to do so is another matter, but LEGALLY, LBJ was perfectly within the lines.

Iraq, on the other hand.

Did not have WMD's like Bush claimed.
Was not supporting Al Qaeda like Bush Claimed.
Was not limiting inspectors like Bush claimed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i'm hearing all the chatter and channels among the free men in the united states. Secession, blanket nullification and civil war within the united states is at hand if the hybrid progressive/neocon leviathan starts world war 3. This will be equivalent to suspending the constitution or confiscating firearms. There is no constitution if obama starts world war 3 without congressional approval. It will be time to restore the rule of law.

progressives among the nations started world war i.
League of nations

progressives among the nations started world war ii.
United nations.

Progressives among the nations are starting world war iii.
Final goal: New world order

progressivism

progressivism is a general political philosophy based on the idea of progress that asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization, can improve the human condition. Progressivism originated in the age of the enlightenment in europe out of the belief that europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from barbaric conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.

Modern progressivism emerged as part of a response to the vast social changes brought by industrialization in the western world in the late 19th century, particularly out of the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism with out-of-control monopolistic corporations, intense and often violent conflict between workers and capitalists, and lack of effort by governments to address these problems.

Political parties such as the progressive party were organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism was embraced in the administrations of american presidents theodore roosevelt, woodrow wilson, franklin delano roosevelt and lyndon baines johnson.

Today, members of the green party of the united states are most likely to self-identify as liberal progressives. In the u.s. Congress, the congressional progressive caucus is the most liberal wing of the democratic party, and it is often in opposition to the more centrist or conservative democrats who form the blue dogs caucus. It is also in near-continuous opposition to the republican party.

progressivism - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- the major purpose of the government is to protect rights

- advocate progressive taxation

- oppose growing and negative influence of large corporations

- support organized labor and trade unions

- provide a living wage

- support a universal health care system

where does "the2ndamendment" get his bizarre ideas?"

why must you lie? Most of what you said is a lie.

 

[Kondor3]

"...big difference between supporting sanctions and limited strikes and committing us to an invasion and decade of occupation..."

Do you mean like President Lyndon B. Johnson (D)(Texas)'s little sortie into a flyspeck called Vietnam?

Repukes and Dummycrats have BOTH gotten us into The Shit repeatedly within living memory.

You mean a sovereign country that asked us for assistance in battling down an insurgency?

Legally, there wasn't an issue. We had in fact assisted sovereign governments in putting down rebellions in Greece, Turkey, the Philippines, probably a bunch of other countries. Whether it was a good idea to do so is another matter, but LEGALLY, LBJ was perfectly within the lines.

Iraq, on the other hand.

Did not have WMD's like Bush claimed.
Was not supporting Al Qaeda like Bush Claimed.
Was not limiting inspectors like Bush claimed.

I'm no talking about the bullshit Legalities behind War A or B or C...

I'm talking about getting us into a War, regardless of the underlying apologia...

By the way, the apologia for jumping into Vietnam was damned-near as specious as that for Iraq...

No... I was pointing out that Dems are just as good at getting us into bullshit wars as Pugs... casus belli A or B or C notwithstanding...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The apologia for both Iraq and Vietnam were not justifiable, and in the later Bush's case, cause for war crimes.

 

[Kondor3]

The apologia for both Iraq and Vietnam were not justifiable...

Agreed.

"...and in the later Bush's case, cause for war crimes."

Not sure, myself.

And just enough of an American Exceptionalist to say that I would not turn an American President over for judgment beyond our own borders, under almost any circumstances, and the Iraq case does not meet that litmus test, in my own tiny little mind...

But that's another conversation, for another time...

 

[Katzndogz]

Most?

It's all a lie.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The apologia for both Iraq and Vietnam were not justifiable...

Agreed.

"...and in the later Bush's case, cause for war crimes."

Not sure, myself.

And just enough of an American Exceptionalist to say that I would not turn an American President over for judgment beyond our own borders, under almost any circumstances, and the Iraq case does not meet that litmus test, in my own tiny little mind...

But that's another conversation, for another time...

I would try Bush here in the USA in federal court.