A conservative's stance on bombing Syria

[Pray_4_War]

We've all heard the great quote "If you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it.  Well, I learned a lesson from Iraq and I find it strange that many have not.

I understood the arguments about chemical and nuclear proliferation.  I understood the larger strategy for the region.  I understood that the USA needs to "mean what it says" when it makes threats to dictators.  I understood that UN resolutions are toothless if you are not willing to back it up with force.  I understood that we were liberating the Iraqi people.  I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt, I supported the President.

The bottom line is that we went to war in Iraq based on weak intelligence with a hard to define purpose.  We didn't fight to win.  It took too long, it cost too many lives and too much money.  It wasn't worth the price we paid.  They aren't fooling me again.  I say let the Mooslims in Syria kill each other.  Then you'll only have one enemy there instead of two.  Fuck them.  

[Purge_WTF]

Constitution Party member since 2010, and I agree whole-heartedly. We can't afford to be the world's police anymore. We haven't been able to afford it for quite some time now.

[240 is Back]

props to everyone who supported iraq and now says 'not again'.

i dislike the thick headed people that still try to justify iraq, but say syria is a bad idea. 

"bomb iraq cause they MIGHT have WMD, even tho the UN can't find them.  Syria?  Nah, gas away brah, it's all good..."

[whork]

props to everyone who supported iraq and now says 'not again'.

i dislike the thick headed people that still try to justify iraq, but say syria is a bad idea. 

"bomb iraq cause they MIGHT have WMD, even tho the UN can't find them.  Syria?  Nah, gas away brah, it's all good..."

 

[avxo]

Constitution Party member since 2010, and I agree whole-heartedly. We can't afford to be the world's police anymore. We haven't been able to afford it for quite some time now.

You are? I'm sorry... frankly, I always find it funny when a party that adopts positions that are contrary to the spirit of the Constitution adopts lofty names and loudly proclaims their love for the document they want to shit on and the country that that document created and defined.

Let's not forget, the Constitution party doesn't believe in freedom of speech and feels that it's the governments role to enforce decency and moral standards by, among other things, outlawing all forms of pornography.

Let's not forget that the Constitution party believes that consenting adults aren't qualified to judge how to mash their privates together and believes that laws should limit how you can have sex.

Let's not forget that the Constitution party believes that people can't be trusted to make their own decisions and cannot be allowed to end their life legally and safely under any circumstances.

Let's not forget that the Constitution party believes that women are nothing more than an incubator and that their bodies can be co-opted from them for months at a time and that that is perfectly acceptable.

I could go on, but I trust the point has been made. Just because its called the "Constitution Party" doesn't mean it has anything to do with the Constitution. It's just another fringe group, pushing a set of viewpoints, many of which are extreme and hoping that nobody will notice those extreme bits by virtue of the name of the party. Frankly, that party is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Now, you can argue that you support some of their positions but not all, but that hardly makes it any better. Remember, that there's no such thing as "slightly murdered".

[whork]

You are? I'm sorry... frankly, I always find it funny when a party that adopts positions that are contrary to the spirit of the Constitution adopts lofty names and loudly proclaims their love for the document they want to shit on and the country that that document created and defined.

Let's not forget, the Constitution party doesn't believe in freedom of speech and feels that it's the governments role to enforce decency and moral standards by, among other things, outlawing all forms of pornography.

Let's not forget that the Constitution party believes that consenting adults aren't qualified to judge how to mash their privates together and believes that laws should limit how you can have sex.

Let's not forget that the Constitution party believes that people can't be trusted to make their own decisions and cannot be allowed to end their life legally and safely under any circumstances.

Let's not forget that the Constitution party believes that women are nothing more than an incubator and that their bodies can be co-opted from them for months at a time and that that is perfectly acceptable.

I could go on, but I trust the point has been made. Just because its called the "Constitution Party" doesn't mean it has anything to do with the Constitution. It's just another fringe group, pushing a set of viewpoints, many of which are extreme and hoping that nobody will notice those extreme bits by virtue of the name of the party. Frankly, that party is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Now, you can argue that you support some of their positions but not all, but that hardly makes it any better. Remember, that there's no such thing as "slightly murdered".

Nice.

[Straw Man]

props to everyone who supported iraq and now says 'not again'.

i dislike the thick headed people that still try to justify iraq, but say syria is a bad idea. 

"bomb iraq cause they MIGHT have WMD, even tho the UN can't find them.  Syria?  Nah, gas away brah, it's all good..."

Bingo

[Soul Crusher]

Bingo

Sadaam gassed 5000 kurds and used them on the Iranians remember you stupid fuck? 

[Straw Man]

Sadaam gassed 5000 kurds and used them on the Iranians remember you stupid fuck? 

No shit Sherlock

do you remember when that happened?

Bush's Daddy just stood back and let them do it

[LurkerNoMore]

No shit Sherlock

do you remember when that happened?

Bush's Daddy just stood back and let them do it

LOL!!!

I am against both instances but find it highly amusing at the idiots crying about how Obama is trying to do the same thing Bush did.  Until Obama handles Syria by invading the wrong country and handing over billions and billions of no compete dollars to Biden's company, it isn't the same thing.   

[headhuntersix]

So we're being historically correct....on point 2, nobody could do what KBR as part of Halibuton could do, in 2003.

[whork]

LOL!!!

I am against both instances but find it highly amusing at the idiots crying about how Obama is trying to do the same thing Bush did.  Until Obama handles Syria by invading the wrong country and handing over billions and billions of no compete dollars to Biden's company, it isn't the same thing.   

+ fucking 1

[Hugo Chavez]

Lurker, whork... The Obama admin is very much acting exactly like Bush.  If you can't see it, you're delusional.  Of course Iraq isn't an exact copy as what's going down with Syria.  To suggest that's exactly what others are suggesting is a copout so you don't have to face the facts about what Obama is doing.

[whork]

Lurker, whork... The Obama admin is very much acting exactly like Bush.  If you can't see it, you're delusional.  Of course Iraq isn't an exact copy as what's going down with Syria.  To suggest that's exactly what others are suggesting is a copout so you don't have to face the facts about what Obama is doing.

And what is Obama doing?
Unless he invades its not Iraq all over again.
If he does that is another story.

[Fury]

And what is Obama doing?
Unless he invades its not Iraq all over again.
If he does that is another story.

Obama got shut the fuck down. Only a fool (read: you and the other Obama cocksuckers) would think the end-game wasn't a ground invasion of Syria. It was left on the table for a reason.

Thankfully Obama is the most incompetent president in ages and got shut down hard on this.

[Pray_4_War]

Lurker, whork... The Obama admin is very much acting exactly like Bush.  If you can't see it, you're delusional.  Of course Iraq isn't an exact copy as what's going down with Syria.  To suggest that's exactly what others are suggesting is a copout so you don't have to face the facts about what Obama is doing.

Exactly, classic diversion tactic.

Obama and his people are using some of the exact same justifications to bomb Syria that Bush used to attack Iraq.  Furthermore, they readily admit that the intelligence isn't 100% certain.  They refuse to rule out putting boots on the ground and they have even mentioned the possibility of regime change.  Open your eyes people.

[LurkerNoMore]

Saying that they are going for ground forces is just speculation.  That would be the same as someone else saying they were sending a Teabagger in with a suicide nuke vest.  Until they actually do something it is anyone's guess to what can and will happen.

But that was not the point of my post.  My post was quite simple.  Everyone is saying that this is Obama using the same justifications that Bush did to start a war.  While that is mostly true, as history shows Bush took those "justifications" and then turned around and invaded a completely different country all together and made Cheney's buddies a pot of gold off it. 

Two completely different things here, so if you want to take an issue with my post try to stick to what I am talking about.  I am not talking about the preamble of war that both Obama and Bush used which is almost identical.  I am talking about the end result of this.  We already saw what Bush's end result was.  As far as Obama's end result, it is nothing but a guess right now.

[Fury]

Saying that they are going for ground forces is just speculation.  That would be the same as someone else saying they were sending a Teabagger in with a suicide nuke vest.  Until they actually do something it is anyone's guess to what can and will happen.

But that was not the point of my post.  My post was quite simple.  Everyone is saying that this is Obama using the same justifications that Bush did to start a war.  While that is mostly true, as history shows Bush took those "justifications" and then turned around and invaded a completely different country all together and made Cheney's buddies a pot of gold off it. 

Two completely different things here, so if you want to take an issue with my post try to stick to what I am talking about.  I am not talking about the preamble of war that both Obama and Bush used which is almost identical.  I am talking about the end result of this.  We already saw what Bush's end result was.  As far as Obama's end result, it is nothing but a guess right now.

You're the only one talking about the end result. Great argument. 

Fact of the matter (and you even admitted) is that everything that has happened to this point is nearly identical to the lead-up to the Iraq War.

[LurkerNoMore]

I'm the only one speaking of end results?     After the "boots to the ground" comment was brought up, you know.... by someone else...     I spoke of Bush's end result.  Which is documented.   I said Obama's end result is only guessing and speculation at this point.

Two completely different things.   

Pointing out I admitted that the preamble of both is the same isn't exactly making any kind of point for you there.  Since that was the very nature of my post.   

Might want to try a tad harder to keep up.

[Pray_4_War]

Saying that they are going for ground forces is just speculation.

During the hearings the other day John Kerry was asked point blank if they would rule out send ground troops and he would not do it.  He went so far as to say that it might be necessary to send ground troops to secure the chemical weapons.  They have also mentioned the possibility of the Saudis financing a US operation centered around regime change. 

This is not speculation.  These are the words that are coming out of their mouths. 

[LurkerNoMore]

During the hearings the other day John Kerry was asked point blank if they would rule out send ground troops and he would not do it.  He went so far as to say that it might be necessary to send ground troops to secure the chemical weapons.  They have also mentioned the possibility of the Saudis financing a US operation centered around regime change. 

This is not speculation.  These are the words that are coming out of their mouths. 

What is said and what actually happens is two different things.  They are politicians.  They are going to say anything, you should know that.  He did not give a definite yes or no to the question.  Just a basic non answer that left it open.  Some people can argue that he never said troops would be sent in, others will argue that he never said they were not being sent in. 

[Pray_4_War]

What is said and what actually happens is two different things.  They are politicians.  They are going to say anything, you should know that.  He did not give a definite yes or no to the question.  Just a basic non answer that left it open.  Some people can argue that he never said troops would be sent in, others will argue that he never said they were not being sent in. 

Bullshitting 101.  You can't refute the words that came out of the administrations owns mouths so you claim that what they doesn't matter because they are politicians.  Flimsy excuses. 

[LurkerNoMore]

I don't need to refute anything.  My post was never about defending or decrying the Administration's words or actions. 

[Soul Crusher]

I don't need to refute anything.  My post was never about defending or decrying the Administration's words or actions. 

 

[whork]

Obama got shut the fuck down. Only a fool (read: you and the other Obama cocksuckers) would think the end-game wasn't a ground invasion of Syria. It was left on the table for a reason.

Thankfully Obama is the most incompetent president in ages and got shut down hard on this.

Why do you think Ob wants to put soldiers on the ground? That has not happened with Egypt or Libya.

Obama's way of handeling Egypt and Libya has caused (zero fatalities?) for the US troops and yet Soul/3333 keeps bringing it up as a failure.

I guess you repub doesnt like the troops? nothing new here