The President's Case for War With Syria

[24KT]

Not the same situation at all.  Syria hasn't attacked it's neighbor.  There is no UN coalition.  We're not enforcing UN resolutions.  There is no Congressional authorization for the use of force. 

Looks pretty similar to me. 

Iraq hadn't attacked anyone (in well over a decade) when USA invaded under GWB
There was no UN coalition. There was also no Congressional authorization. Congress did not declare war.
One of the multiple goals was regime change with the bonus of further facilitating the boxing in of Iran.

[24KT]

Did he convince you?  Not me.

It looks like he phoned that one in.   

[Dos Equis]

Looks pretty similar to me.  

Iraq hadn't attacked anyone (in well over a decade) when USA invaded under GWB
There was no UN coalition. There was also no Congressional authorization. Congress did not declare war.
One of the multiple goals was regime change with the bonus of further facilitating the boxing in of Iran.

The fact Iraq invaded its neighbor and was preparing to invade another separates that entire situation from Syria.  We were enforcing a UN resolution that ended Desert Storm.  There is nothing remotely comparable involving Syria, which did not invade or attack its neighbors.  

We were enforcing a UN resolution, so yes, there was a UN coalition.  

There was Congressional authorization for the use of force in 2002.  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm  

The war started in 2003.

[AndreaRyc]

Not the same situation at all.  Syria hasn't attacked it's neighbor.  There is no UN coalition.  We're not enforcing UN resolutions.  There is no Congressional authorization for the use of force. 

It's the same and worse.  Iraq attacked no one in the run up to war. 1991? Hardly imminent.  Bush violated UN requests to not attack Iraq.  Blix was finding no weapons so naturally the president saw a threat requiring death from above. Congressional Authorization is quaint under the Bush Doctrine of Preemption."Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation -- this generation -- will lift a dark threat

"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Bush's speech also outlines a vision for a strong American leadership in the world, a leadership that would project America's power and influence:

of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."

"North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. ...

"Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror....

"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. ...

"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.

"We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."



How do you read the president's words and totally miss the point that a state sponsor of terrorism, like Syria, is a threat to the US by its very existence and operation?  No, there has to be another reason why you don't support military action.

Would you mind being a smidgen biit more truthful with your reasoning and values?

[Dos Equis]

It's the same and worse.  Iraq attacked no one in the run up to war. 1991? Hardly imminent.  Bush violated UN requests to not attack Iraq.  Blix was finding no weapons so naturally the president saw a threat requiring death from above. Congressional Authorization is quaint under the Bush Doctrine of Preemption."Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation -- this generation -- will lift a dark threat

"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Bush's speech also outlines a vision for a strong American leadership in the world, a leadership that would project America's power and influence:

of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."

"North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. ...

"Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror....

"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. ...

"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.

"We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."



How do you read the president's words and totally miss the point that a state sponsor of terrorism, like Syria, is a threat to the US by its very existence and operation?  No, there has to be another reason why you don't support military action.

Would you mind being a smidgen biit more truthful with your reasoning and values?

No one said Iraq was on the verge of attacking another neighbor in 2003.  It’s the fact he had previously done it that made him more dangerous, and completely separates Iraq from Syria. 

In fact, not only had Iraq invaded a sovereign country (Kuwait) and was massing troops on the Saudi Arabian border, he committed an act of war by bombing Israel.  That’s all in addition to previously using chemical weapons on his own people. 

So when Clinton and his administration, Gore, Kerry, and Democrats in the House and Senate deemed Sadaam a threat due to WMDs, and made statements in that regard from 1998 through 2002, the fact Iraq had previously attacked two countries and threatened a third made him a threat to the entire region.  The prior invasion of another country, threatening of a second, and bombing of a third had to be part of the analysis.   

That’s why Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, authorized the use of force in 2002.   

What do we have in Syria?  A civil war.  Not a threat to the United States.  Not a threat to neighbors.  No invasion of neighbors.  No bombing of neighbors.  Not even remotely similar situations.       

That’s why Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, are not going to authorize the use of force in Syria in 2013. 

[AndreaRyc]

No one said Iraq was on the verge of attacking another neighbor in 2003.  It’s the fact he had previously done it that made him more dangerous, and completely separates Iraq from Syria. 

In fact, not only had Iraq invaded a sovereign country (Kuwait) and was massing troops on the Saudi Arabian border, he committed an act of war by bombing Israel.  That’s all in addition to previously using chemical weapons on his own people. 

So when Clinton and his administration, Gore, Kerry, and Democrats in the House and Senate deemed Sadaam a threat due to WMDs, and made statements in that regard from 1998 through 2002, the fact Iraq had previously attacked two countries and threatened a third made him a threat to the entire region.  The prior invasion of another country, threatening of a second, and bombing of a third had to be part of the analysis.   

That’s why Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, authorized the use of force in 2002.   

What do we have in Syria?  A civil war.  Not a threat to the United States.  Not a threat to neighbors.  No invasion of neighbors.  No bombing of neighbors.  Not even remotely similar situations.       

That’s why Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, are not going to authorize the use of force in Syria in 2013. 

You are not addressing the matter at hand.  The things you mention to differentiate the Iraq situation from Syria’s are irrelevant to the Bush Doctrine and frankly, you have your facts wrong as well.

The Bush Doctrine, as recounted by Col Powell:

".. that Washington has a "sovereign right to use force to defend ourselves" from nations that possess weapons of mass destruction and cooperate with terrorists,.."

Syria has WMDs and it is a well know sponsor of terrorism. 

Why are you talking about Kerry or Clinton?  The Bush Doctrine is the Bush doctrine.  Not the 'check with Kerrey, Gore and Clinton before Bush orders the attack' doctrine.

“We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

If you supported the Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003, you would have to be a flaming hypocrite to not support an attack of Syria. 
Now, under the purview of the Bush Doctrine, explain why you are not a hypocrite with your stance on not attacking Syria?

Just a little constistency with you guys on the right would make this go a whole lot easier.

[headhuntersix]

Not after 13 years of war...based on budget and experience dealing with these people, its just not worth it.

[AndreaRyc]

Not after 13 years of war...based on budget and experience dealing with these people, its just not worth it.

Maybe, but that practical observation is not what decides military action against countries harboring WMDs and terrorists.  The president decides.  He's the decider.

President Bush articulates his discrete concept of the Bush Doctrine. According to the President, his doctrine consisted of four "prongs," three of them practical, and one idealistic. They are the following: (In his words)

1."Make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them--and hold both to account."
2."Take the fight to the enemy overseas before they can attack us again here at home."
3."Confront threats before they fully materialize."
4."Advance liberty and hope as an alternative to the enemy's ideology of repression and fear."

[Soul Crusher]

And what did it get us?  Nothing.  These animals should all gas each other into oblivion for all I care

Maybe, but that practical observation is not what decides military action against countries harboring WMDs and terrorists.  The president decides.  He's the decider.

President Bush articulates his discrete concept of the Bush Doctrine. According to the President, his doctrine consisted of four "prongs," three of them practical, and one idealistic. They are the following: (In his words)

1."Make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them--and hold both to account."
2."Take the fight to the enemy overseas before they can attack us again here at home."
3."Confront threats before they fully materialize."
4."Advance liberty and hope as an alternative to the enemy's ideology of repression and fear."

[headhuntersix]

Sure thing ....First off nobody in America cares...nobody....again. ..nobody. Barry doesn't decide shit...he's a pansy..he leads from the back. Bush isn't the president, I see how you're confused as the current admin, in office almost 6 years, still blames him.  The military is being drawn down. We're pulling out of Afghanistan. There is zero interest in getting invloved there.

[AndreaRyc]

And what did it get us?  Nothing.  These animals should all gas each other into oblivion for all I care

It's hard to believe you are not a leader of men and women.

[Soul Crusher]

It's hard to believe you are not a leader of men and women.

Who cares about these slime?  I would not trade the lives of one more US Soldier for a million of these sand maggots. 

[AndreaRyc]

Sure thing ....First off nobody in America cares...nobody....again. ..nobody. Barry doesn't decide shit...he's a pansy..he leads from the back. Bush isn't the president, I see how you're confused as the current admin, in office almost 6 years, still blames him.  The military is being drawn down. We're pulling out of Afghanistan. There is zero interest in getting invloved there.

Mmmmhmmmm. 

When you can't support yourself or your position...change the subject....nobody cares, Barry doesn't decide...he's only the president of the USA, Bush hatred is clouding the issue, why we're pulling out of AFG.

The Arthur Murray School of debate.  And you have a Phd in the softshoe my adversary.  Tap, atap, atapa atap.  Bush Doctrine...never heard of  it...tap, a tap, atap.  Now for the big finish:

[AndreaRyc]

Who cares about these slime?  I would not trade the lives of one more US Soldier for a million of these sand maggots. 

Those maggots have WMDs, they've used WMDs and Syria is a state sponsor of terror.  You could be next.  We can't wait for the small threats to appear in the US in form of a mushroom cloud.

[headhuntersix]

It's hard to believe you are not a leader of men and women.

hey dumbass....Bush isn't the president...Obama DOES NOT FOLLOW THE BUSH DOCTRINE. What part aren't you getting. If u feel so much love for our muslim brothers...go ahead and fly to Jordan and get an AK and join up.

We're not next....Assad wants to stay in power. The terror organizations are a problem but destroying Assad allows AQ and other jihadi organizations access to WMD's and other toys. Iran is the problme but you libs didn't want to support the protestors...again leading from the back etc.

[AndreaRyc]

hey dumbass....Bush isn't the president...Obama DOES NOT FOLLOW THE BUSH DOCTRINE. What part aren't you getting. If u feel so much love for our muslim brothers...go ahead and fly to Jordan and get an AK and join up.

We're not next....Assad wants to stay in power. The terror organizations are a problem but destroying Assad allows AQ and other jihadi organizations access to WMD's and other toys. Iran is the problme but you libs didn't want to support the protestors...again leading from the back etc.

Don't get your thong and panties in a bunch good lookin'. 

Hussein wanted to stay in power too.  I don't sympathize with dictators like you do.  Destroying Hussein did not open the door to his good friends in Al Qaeda to step in and run Iraq...We'd install a democracy in Syria...just like we did in Iraq.

Why doesn't President Obama follow the Bush doctrine?


Why I bet you were a big fan of the Bush Doctrine back when it was cool to be part of the herd.   Am I right?

[headhuntersix]

I spent march and April of 2003 on Bagdad Airport.....I have zero sympathy for 99.9% of the population, let alone a raghead dictator. However, I'm done with these people. Let the arabs deal with him. Was I a big fan....I believed in killing these people before they killed us....and more to the point I commanded a M1A1 tank company and wanted to let my boys loose. I'm tired now, I don't care what happens to these people. They have proven that they don't care about each other so its time for the West to turn its back to them.

[Soul Crusher]

Exactly - these filthy worthless scum and animals should probably be provided WMD since most will be used on each other - and that is awesome for everyone. 

[headhuntersix]

We're rehashing Iraq...this ain't Iraq and its 2013. Our economy cannot sustain another war. Stop with the Bush doctrine, you sound like an idiot. Obama could have fought to stay in Iraq but fucked that up. He failed in Afghanistan...but that was ano win. I'm all for breaking things, but rebuilding the unbuildable is stupid.

[AndreaRyc]

I spent march and April of 2003 on Bagdad Airport.....I have zero sympathy for 99.9% of the population, let alone a raghead dictator. However, I'm done with these people. Let the arabs deal with him. Was I a big fan....I believed in killing these people before they killed us....and more to the point I commanded a M1A1 tank company and wanted to let my boys loose. I'm tired now, I don't care what happens to these people. They have proven that they don't care about each other so its time for the West to turn its back to them.

Yet you willingly went to slaughter these people b/c of the groundwork laid by Bush Doctrine. 

You believed that they were to kill us? 

Ideas matter.  Youpay no heed to ideas.  You don't even try to understand how things work.  You did what you were told, lock, stock and barrel and that fed your self-righteous beliefs.

You followed the crowd into Iraq and killed people that you were told deserved it and that became your way.

You're obviously a tortured man so I won't belabor the point. 


I will leave you with this:  become who you are.  If that's a part of the herd, then it is.  IF not, then you do yourself a disservice.

[AndreaRyc]

We're rehashing Iraq...this ain't Iraq and its 2013. Our economy cannot sustain another war. Stop with the Bush doctrine, you sound like an idiot. Obama could have fought to stay in Iraq but fucked that up. He failed in Afghanistan...but that was ano win. I'm all for breaking things, but rebuilding the unbuildable is stupid.

The Bush Doctrine is still viable law.  If not, then a whole lot of people are war criminals in this country, including yourself.

You want all the fun and carefree excitement of mindless killing / destruction (I don't get that either) without enduring the conquences of your acts.  That's not responsible.

Our economy is fine.  It can sustain multi-trillion dollar hits and keep rolling.  That's no justification for not attacking Syria.

Syria has WMDs.

It is using WMDs currently.



It is a state sponsor of terrorism.

I think if Romney was making the call, you'd be saddling up your ICBM for a little ride into the Syrian night.

This is a slam dunk attack under the BUSH DOCTRINE.  Yet you and your republican cohorts dither in the face of evil.

[headhuntersix]

Then join...I can map it all out for you. Take a course at one of the local PMC schools. Hope a flight to Jordan or even pakistan. There you can find jihadists groups mounting up for action. If they don't kill you as a CIA spy, they'll give a bag of rice, an AK and ride to the front. Have at it....oh and the BUSH DOCTRINE ISN"T A FRIGGEN LAW!!!!!

Under the articles of the Geneva Convention that we did sign and by the multiple Congressional findings, acts and votes authorizing war against Iraq plus that of the UN resolutions passed on that point....I'm not a war criminal. Keep trying idiot....

[Soul Crusher]

So Obama is following the W doctrine despite the fact that this ghetto drug addicted street twink is still blaming W for all that ailes his failed presidency?>

The Bush Doctrine is still viable law.  If not, then a whole lot of people are war criminals in this country, including yourself.

You want all the fun and carefree excitement of mindless killing / destruction (I don't get that either) without enduring the conquences of your acts.  That's not responsible.

Our economy is fine.  It can sustain multi-trillion dollar hits and keep rolling.  That's no justification for not attacking Syria.

Syria has WMDs.

It is using WMDs currently.



It is a state sponsor of terrorism.

I think if Romney was making the call, you'd be saddling up your ICBM for a little ride into the Syrian night.

This is a slam dunk attack under the BUSH DOCTRINE.  Yet you and your republican cohorts dither in the face of evil.

[AndreaRyc]

Then join...I can map it all out for you. Take a course at one of the local PMC schools. Hope a flight to Jordan or even pakistan. There you can find jihadists groups mounting up for action. If they don't kill you as a CIA spy, they'll give a bag of rice, an AK and ride to the front. Have at it....oh and the BUSH DOCTRINE ISN"T A FRIGGEN LAW!!!!!

Under the articles of the Geneva Convention that we did sign and by the multiple Congressional findings, acts and votes authorizing war against Iraq plus that of the UN resolutions passed on that point....I'm not a war criminal. Keep trying idiot....

The Bush Doctrine has to be legal and it isn't.  You are a war criminal.  That doesn't please me to say that.

The US violated the UN charter.  Why you bring up the Geneva Convention, I don't know.  Must make you sleep better at night.  The UN resolutions were violated by Bush and company. 

On the other hand, Iraq was a threat to destroy the US in 2003 and your killing of Iraqi women and children saved us all from being conquered.

Thank you for saving us all. 

You're a hero.

[Soul Crusher]

Yet you voted for O-Twink who has a kill list on his desk of drones and who is also bombing other countries wo a formal delcartion of water. 

Kill yourself

The Bush Doctrine has to be legal and it isn't.  You are a war criminal.  That doesn't please me to say that.

The US violated the UN charter.  Why you bring up the Geneva Convention, I don't know.  Must make you sleep better at night.  The UN resolutions were violated by Bush and company. 

On the other hand, Iraq was a threat to destroy the US in 2003 and your killing of Iraqi women and children saved us all from being conquered.

Thank you for saving us all. 

You're a hero.