For those who haven't yet...

Totally agree here. So why does Obama think this is an issue and that we should get involved yet he didn't believe we should have gone into Iraq?

Because since WWII, the international community has held a standard on Chemical Weapon use. Assad is no friend of the United States, and neither are the Syrian rebels, that is not the point, but anytime someone uses Chemical Weapons and we can do something about it, we should. If Syria nuked one of its own cities we would do something because we have the same position on use of nuclear weapons.

This is different than what happened in Iraq. When Iraq used Chemical Weapons on its own people George Bush Sr., let it slide, and that position eventually led us to a ground war with Iraq. We had sanctions that prohibited Iraq from having WMD, after 9-11 Bush Jr., felt he had justification to take Saddam out so he made shit up about WMD in Iraq as an excuse to take him out. Republicans and many Democrats supported that decision, now they wont back Obama on a much more clear case and much less risk to human life in a much more limited request for authorization for a few air strikes on confirmed chemical weapons facilities.
 
Totally agree here. So why does Obama think this is an issue and that we should get involved yet he didn't believe we should have gone into Iraq?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/world/meast/syria-civil-war/

Syria chemical arms plan promising 'if it's real,' Obama says
By Matt Smith and Catherine E. Shoichet, CNN
updated 7:06 AM EDT, Tue September 10, 2013

(CNN) -- Facing weak support for U.S. military action, President Barack Obama said Monday that a plan to have Syria hand its chemical arsenal over to international control could avert American strikes "if it's real."

"It's certainly a positive development when the Russians and Syrians both make gestures towards dealing with these chemical weapons," President Barack Obama told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Monday. But Obama said the threat of American force would remain, "And we don't want just a stalling or delaying tactic to put off the pressure that we have on there right now."

Obama was making the rounds of television interviews in an effort to shore up support for a congressional resolution that would authorize him to launch punitive raids on Syria, which his administration accuses of using poison gas against opposition forces and civilians. He's scheduled to address the nation Tuesday night, and that speech is still on, he said.

...

The Russian proposal came after comments by Secretary of State John Kerry earlier Monday -- remarks that the State Department said were meant to be rhetorical, but which Lavrov proposed concretely.

Asked during a stop in London whether there was anything Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government could do or offer that would stop an attack, Kerry said that al-Assad "could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week" -- adding, "He isn't about to do it, and it can't be done, obviously."

...White House spokesman Jay Carney said Washington remained "highly skeptical" of the Syrian regime. But Obama told CNN, "We have not seen these kinds of gestures up until now," suggesting his threat of force had prompted "some interesting conversations."

"We're going to run this to ground," the president said. "And John Kerry and the rest of my national security team will engage with the Russians and the international community to see, can we arrive at something that is enforceable and serious."

...

Al-Assad warned Monday that his country would lash out in potentially unpredictable ways after a U.S. military strike, telling CBS, "You should expect everything." He sidestepped the question of whether he would use chemical weapons against Western forces, but invoked the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington to warn that military action has unforeseen consequences.

"It is difficult for anyone to tell you what is going to happen," he said. "It's an area where everything is on the brink of explosion."

But on CNN's "The Situation Room," Obama snapped back that Syria is no threat to the United States.

"Mr. Assad doesn't have a lot of capability," Obama said. "He has capability relative to children. He has capability relative to an opposition that is still getting itself organized and are not professional, trained fighters. He doesn't have a credible means to threaten the United States."

...

Sen. Jack Reed, a leading Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said the Lavrov proposal is a "distinct change" in Russia's stance, "going from sort of defenders of the regime to now saying there's a real serious problem with chemical weapons in Syria."

"It is very thoughtful," said Reed, of Rhode Island, who described himself as undecided on Syria. "It goes to the essential objective that we should have, which is to deter the use of chemical weapons. This should not be about trying to settle a civil war raging in Syria."
 
They Conservatives feel that they are the only ones who should be able to wage war, facts be dammed, if they want one they are entitled.

If a Conservative wants an unjustified war, you are un-American if you don't support it.

If a Liberal wants a justified attack, you are un-American if you support it.

What an incredible massive pile of incredible bile. How many wars have Republicans waged? Do you even have the remotest clue what war actually means?

Did you vote for Obama?

Syria is about as justifiable as JFKs logic to start American involvement in Indo China.

Iraq was the direct result of a UN action to eject Saddam from Kuwait after his atrocity laden invasion of a member state. I'm amused when liberals believe in UN action but then denounce efforts to enforce UN reolutions.

I am equally amused when Liberals like Obama who impugned the efforts in Iraq and who proclaimed they would subjugate American leadership to the UN now attempt to circumvent the UN and bomb a nation engaged in civil war. A war where there is no clear idea which regime will be worse in a nation created by European Imperialists who sought to exploit the resources in the ME.

If you had even the slightest clue, you would know that historically, Democrats have been in charge in WW I, WW II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Hard to believe your clueless rant that Republicans like wars.
 
I forget how many isolationists we have on here. Yes, we need to have treaties with other countries; Yes, we need to be involved to some degree; Yes, it is in our own best interests to work with other countries on things like banning chemical weapons, controlling nuclear materials, etc.

Those who would prefer us to have no treaties, no involvement, etc - you're missing out on the fact we all live on the same world. Nuclear bomb fallout doesn't respect borders. Ditto for pollution. Chemical weapons are easily transported. Etc, etc, etc.

We need friends; they need us as friends.

But that's way off topic for this thread.

But it looks like the US rattling its big stick has had some impact; and I think we all would agree that having the chemical weapons in Syria end up in the hands of a fractured rebel force if Assad is overthrown would be very very bad.
 
I forget how many isolationists we have on here. Yes, we need to have treaties with other countries; Yes, we need to be involved to some degree; Yes, it is in our own best interests to work with other countries on things like banning chemical weapons, controlling nuclear materials, etc.

Those who would prefer us to have no treaties, no involvement, etc - you're missing out on the fact we all live on the same world. Nuclear bomb fallout doesn't respect borders. Ditto for pollution. Chemical weapons are easily transported. Etc, etc, etc.

We need friends; they need us as friends.

But that's way off topic for this thread.

But it looks like the US rattling its big stick has had some impact; and I think we all would agree that having the chemical weapons in Syria end up in the hands of a fractured rebel force if Assad is overthrown would be very very bad.

I'm curious; when did Syria become a friend or ally of the US?
 
No blood for gas.

This.

I've skipped about four pages of personal squabbling so my apologies if this has already come up. And if I posted this last week, I can't remember.

Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria? Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won't let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe. Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been "jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime"? Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region. On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom. Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict.

Consider the broader geo-political dynamics. As with everything, just follow the money.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...to-war-with-syria-over-a-natural-gas-pipeline
 
President Obama thought so around the same time they hit the 'reset' button for Russia.

President Obama doesn't think as is evidenced by his entire Presidency. But that wasn't the question; since when was Syria an ally or friend of the US? The answer is very simple, it never has been. It has been an ally of the former Soviet Union which still arms the Syrian Army to this day.

So I am curious about the claims from the Liberal left now that proclaimed we had no business in Iraq, when we did, but now claim Syria is our business; why?
 
I'm curious; when did Syria become a friend or ally of the US?

Before the civil war, Syria and the US had limited cooperation on the war on terror, which is one reason we at first didn't come out against Assad. Not exactly an ally, but we did have some connections.

But in the case of this post, I was referring to my earlier comments re how NOT doing something also has consequences, and referred particularly to Israel (an ally) and Iran (obviously not one).

I was not referring to Syria itself. Although it's an example of how (again, pre-civil-war) even a country we had issues with could still at times be useful to us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria%E2%80%93United_States_relations
 
President Obama doesn't think as is evidenced by his entire Presidency. But that wasn't the question; since when was Syria an ally or friend of the US? The answer is very simple, it never has been. It has been an ally of the former Soviet Union which still arms the Syrian Army to this day.

So I am curious about the claims from the Liberal left now that proclaimed we had no business in Iraq, when we did, but now claim Syria is our business; why?

I'm the liberal left and it's none of our business. We need to stay the fuck out. We should however, do whatever we can to ease the suffering of the 2 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon and Jordan. Lebanon has a population of four million and has taken on 1 million refugees. Think about that.
 
Because since WWII, the international community has held a standard on Chemical Weapon use. Assad is no friend of the United States, and neither are the Syrian rebels, that is not the point, but anytime someone uses Chemical Weapons and we can do something about it, we should. If Syria nuked one of its own cities we would do something because we have the same position on use of nuclear weapons.

But if this were the case, why then did the UN and world look the other way when Saddam gassed the Kurds? Why were there no threats and outrage when Iraq gassed Iranians, or when Iran gassed Iraqi’s?

Iran has chemical weapons and is developing a nuclear capability; yet no one is lobbing missiles or bombing them; why?

This is different than what happened in Iraq. When Iraq used Chemical Weapons on its own people George Bush Sr., let it slide, and that position eventually led us to a ground war with Iraq.

That’s another incredible lie. Bush Sr. didn’t let anything slide; no one cared. We didn’t care and the UN didn’t care; yet suddenly, you think we ought to care regarding Syria…why?

We had sanctions that prohibited Iraq from having WMD, after 9-11 Bush Jr., felt he had justification to take Saddam out so he made shit up about WMD in Iraq as an excuse to take him out.

Another incredible lie; there were UN sanctions on Saddam because his forces had been ejected from Kuwait, a member nation of the UN that had been unjustly invaded. Bush Jr. absolutely had legal justification to go into Iraq and enforce resolutions and agreements Saddam had discarded for a decade.

The Joint Resolution contained about 250 words related to WMDs in a 1,800 plus word document; hardly a compelling case for the lie that it was all about WMDs. Read it and become informed instead of parroting the idiot talking points of the DNC.

Republicans and many Democrats supported that decision, now they wont back Obama on a much more clear case and much less risk to human life in a much more limited request for authorization for a few air strikes on confirmed chemical weapons facilities.

There is a painfully obvious reason Republicans and Democrats won’t support the efforts of this Administration and idiot of a President on Syria; because the justification to do so is incredibly weak, it is so very limited, it has no chance of success and the outcomes are so unpredictable that it is not palatable.

The massive hypocrisy contained in Kerry’s statements is of profound proportions that only Liberals are capable of making. A man who was FOR the Iraq War before he was against it and who claimed that we had no business even being in Iraq, a nation that had gassed hundreds of thousands even of their own countrymen, now proclaims "history would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator's wanton use of weapons of mass destruction against all warnings, against all common understanding of decency. These things we do know".

The only thing more moronic is this statement: "We also know that we have a President who does what he says that he will do. And he has said very clearly that whatever decision he makes in Syria, it will bear no resemblance to Afghanistan, Iraq, or even Libya".

I cannot imagine how anyone can continue to support the idiots in this Administration or this inept inexperienced buffoon of a President other than for purely partisan political purposes.
 
Before the civil war, Syria and the US had limited cooperation on the war on terror, which is one reason we at first didn't come out against Assad. Not exactly an ally, but we did have some connections.

But in the case of this post, I was referring to my earlier comments re how NOT doing something also has consequences, and referred particularly to Israel (an ally) and Iran (obviously not one).

I was not referring to Syria itself. Although it's an example of how (again, pre-civil-war) even a country we had issues with could still at times be useful to us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria%E2%80%93United_States_relations

The answer to my question is simple; Syria was never an ally or a friend of the US.
 
I'm the liberal left and it's none of our business. We need to stay the fuck out. We should however, do whatever we can to ease the suffering of the 2 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon and Jordan. Lebanon has a population of four million and has taken on 1 million refugees. Think about that.

I'm a right wing Conservative; and I agree with your assessment. ;)
 
Totally agree here. So why does Obama think this is an issue and that we should get involved yet he didn't believe we should have gone into Iraq?
Really? Obama doesn't think so. His true masters, the Military Industrial Complex think so. Let's be real about the facts here and stop blaming the present Puppet in Chief.
 
Another incredibly naive fool who thinks tyrants, dictators and terrorists can be reasoned with.

Didn't you learn anything from the last time I schooled you yesterday?

We have no business
1. In the Middle East.
2. Reasoning with dictators
3. Creating fresh terrorists by the hundreds of thousands by indiscriminately invaded sovereign nations and killing woman and children.

When you find a huge hornet's next do you kick it around or leave it alone?
 
What an incredible massive pile of incredible bile. How many wars have Republicans waged? Do you even have the remotest clue what war actually means?

Did you vote for Obama?

Syria is about as justifiable as JFKs logic to start American involvement in Indo China.

Iraq was the direct result of a UN action to eject Saddam from Kuwait after his atrocity laden invasion of a member state. I'm amused when liberals believe in UN action but then denounce efforts to enforce UN reolutions.

I am equally amused when Liberals like Obama who impugned the efforts in Iraq and who proclaimed they would subjugate American leadership to the UN now attempt to circumvent the UN and bomb a nation engaged in civil war. A war where there is no clear idea which regime will be worse in a nation created by European Imperialists who sought to exploit the resources in the ME.

If you had even the slightest clue, you would know that historically, Democrats have been in charge in WW I, WW II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Hard to believe your clueless rant that Republicans like wars.


The main source of your cluelessness is your assignment of responsibility to any other then the MIC and the financiers behind them.
 
But if this were the case, why then did the UN and world look the other way when Saddam gassed the Kurds? Why were there no threats and outrage when Iraq gassed Iranians, or when Iran gassed Iraqi’s?

Iran has chemical weapons and is developing a nuclear capability; yet no one is lobbing missiles or bombing them; why?



That’s another incredible lie. Bush Sr. didn’t let anything slide; no one cared. We didn’t care and the UN didn’t care; yet suddenly, you think we ought to care regarding Syria…why?



Another incredible lie; there were UN sanctions on Saddam because his forces had been ejected from Kuwait, a member nation of the UN that had been unjustly invaded. Bush Jr. absolutely had legal justification to go into Iraq and enforce resolutions and agreements Saddam had discarded for a decade.

The Joint Resolution contained about 250 words related to WMDs in a 1,800 plus word document; hardly a compelling case for the lie that it was all about WMDs. Read it and become informed instead of parroting the idiot talking points of the DNC.



There is a painfully obvious reason Republicans and Democrats won’t support the efforts of this Administration and idiot of a President on Syria; because the justification to do so is incredibly weak, it is so very limited, it has no chance of success and the outcomes are so unpredictable that it is not palatable.

The massive hypocrisy contained in Kerry’s statements is of profound proportions that only Liberals are capable of making. A man who was FOR the Iraq War before he was against it and who claimed that we had no business even being in Iraq, a nation that had gassed hundreds of thousands even of their own countrymen, now proclaims "history would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator's wanton use of weapons of mass destruction against all warnings, against all common understanding of decency. These things we do know".

The only thing more moronic is this statement: "We also know that we have a President who does what he says that he will do. And he has said very clearly that whatever decision he makes in Syria, it will bear no resemblance to Afghanistan, Iraq, or even Libya".

I cannot imagine how anyone can continue to support the idiots in this Administration or this inept inexperienced buffoon of a President other than for purely partisan political purposes.


Wow. I am not even going to go here until later, when I am bored enough to readily refute this mountain of rubbish.
 
Back
Top