why?Lets see, Iraq:Democracy, removal of a tyrant, and WMDSSyrai:Democracy, removal of a tyrant, and WMDSBoth BULL SHITExcept for most conservatives on and off this board, from 2004-2008 it wasn't.
I don't think the situations are similar. Syria is involved in a civil war, hasn't invaded its neighbor and threatened to invade another, and there isn't a bipartisan chorus of legislators and executive branch officials calling Assad a threat to the region and the U.S.
Yet.... It needs democracy, it has a tyrant possibly using chemical weapons on its people and it has WMD's. Same as Iraq.
Who is saying Syria needs Democracy? The only similarity regarding WMDs is Syria used them against their own people, and Saddam used them against his own people. If Syria had also invaded its neighbor (like Iraq invaded Kuwait), massed troops on the border of another neighbor (like Iraq did with Saudi Arabia), bombed an innocent country (like Iraq did with Israel), had to be forcefully removed, was under UN sanctions, and convinced most people in D.C. that he possessed WMDs and was a threat to use them in the region, then we would have a similar situation.
you mean 12 years ago. After a cease fire, agreement, no fly zone etc.... where he didn't use WMD outside his country, nor did he invade and or attack anyone else as per the crease fire agreement. What's similar, not exact, is that IF we go to war in Syria it will be for those 3 reasons i showed, which are the same reason we went into Iraq. The democracy thing become more of a thing after the WMD scam was exposed.
Not only are they not exact, they're not similar at all. It's really night and day. When has Syria threatened or actually invaded or bombed its neighbors?
When has Iraq used chemical weapons in its own people?When has the Iraqi people be repressed by tyrannical leadership?When was Iraq Absent of democracy?
Who are you, Jack Cross, answering a question with a question??
Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds. The Iraqi people were tortured and murdered by their leader and their leader hoarded the country's resources. I don't think Iraq had a democracy. Wasn't Saddam "winning" by like a 90 percent margin? Dictators stay in power. When has Syria threatened or actually invaded or bombed its neighbors?
lol, Do you think Jack is my gimmick account? You said there were no similarities.I provided 3 big ones.Additionally while you try and use the invasion of Kuwait as a key point of your argument of these 2 things not being the same, you are leaving out the fact that it happened 13 years prior to 2003 and it wasn't mainly used to justify the invasion. What was used:WMDsLater after they magically weren't there it was mostly:Spreading democracy Removing a tyrant
Quote from: Beach Bum on August 28, 2013, 12:00:00 PMThe only similarity regarding WMDs is Syria used them against their own people, and Saddam used them against his own people.
The only similarity regarding WMDs is Syria used them against their own people, and Saddam used them against his own people.
Next thing you know you'll be starting a thread about the nefarious government conspiracy regarding 911.
I contradicted myself. I initially said this:
It wasn't just that they invaded Kuwait. They were also likely going to invade Saudi Arabia and dropped bombs on Israel. Also, the only reason we stopped shooting the first time was they agreed to UN resolutions that they did not comply with. And . . . everyone thought he still had WMDs and needed to be disarmed, up through the second war. Congress approved too. We don't have those facts with Syria.
do you think i should start a thread like that? Think about your answer I am asserting the "reasons" will be the same. Democracy, Remove Tyrant, WMD's (as per the thread title)All of which happened 12 years before we invaded. And we didn't invade because they were going to invade someone or because they dropped bombs on someone. We invaded because we used WMD's as our excuse and when that bullshit was exposed, we used spreading democracy and removing a dictator to "save the people" we will do the same shit IF we get involved in Syria. But this time i think there will have to be actual proof of Chemicals weapons were used before anything really happens.
lol. And I'm sure you want a straight answer too. The fact he invaded Kuwait, was going to invade Saudi Arabia, and bombed Israel is partly what made him more dangerous. I don't think it matters that those actions were 12 years prior. Just think about how dangerous those actions are. I cannot think of a similar situation in my lifetime where a country engaged in that type of completely unprovoked military aggression. Maybe Japan was the last one? Germany?It's certainly possible the reason for bombing Syria will evolve, especially given our president's penchant for dramatically changing his positions.
I am sure in the 1900's it happened more than once.Those actions in 1990 were ultimately far more dangerous to him than anyone else in the aftermath. As a result of his invasion of Kuwait he lost billions of dollars in oil revenue, his economy suffered, he nearly lost his power as leader, his army got smashed, and he had a no fly zone over his country. Any aggressive action by him results in the lost of his power which something no dictator wants. Any one can figure this out. We had an excuse, thank AQ for that.
Nobody in the Pentagon is happy about this...it will do nothing for our budget issues except make things worse.
